D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

[FrogReaver]

I like balanced games. I'm all for them. I don't mind point buy but I know I am not nearly as creative with point buy as I am with rolling. Point buy only allows for balance if everyone builds for combat (high ac, high hp, high damage stat). If anyone breaks that mold then point buy is no longer balanced in the combat sector and it's doubtful that the bonuses to "other skills" and "other saving throws" is going to matter as much as the combat part.

That's why I can't play as interesting of characters with point buy. All my points are already predetermined based on what stats my class features and defenses key on.

For example I can't play a charismatic monk without sacrificing my combat effectiveness. And it will be said that charisma offers it's own benefits. Well if it does why can I play a full caster sorcerer or bard where maxing charisma still helps my combat effectiveness? So yes, playing against the grain will lower your comparative combat effectiveness and usually give you little gain in other areas especially compared to other classes that can increase combat effectiveness while increasing those other stats.

That's why I find rolling more interesting. My monk can be just as charismatic as the parties sorcerer without losing combat effectiveness. Is that fair? I think it's more fair than never seeing a charismatic monk because it hurts their combat abilities to much to invest in charisma.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's wonderful. I'm certainly not saying that all fighters have to be super-strong or else all players will be miserable. If the player is buying into their modestly-powered warrior, great! But if the player has the fantasy in their head of being the mighty-thewed swordsman or -woman, and they end up in such a situation, then they are hardly whiny or entitled or unjustified in thinking, "Hey, something's not right here, this game's not giving me the experience I want, maybe I should just go play Skyrim where I won't have this problem."

If they are so attached to this fantasy, and you want to give it to them, why not just let them pick stats freeform? Why even bother will point buy? Why satisfy some fantasies and not others, based on numerology?

"And the number of thy stats shall be 27. No more, no less."
"But Holy Father, what are stats? And why must 27 be the sum?"
"Hush. Question not the Writ, callow youth, lest the arbitrary DM smite thee."

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Besides, PHB says you can justify low scores any way you like. If you want to play Achilles from Str 11 on up, just explain his "low" Strength by making him an infant or a toddler. By the time he's an adult he might have Str 28 and a dozen epic boons, but a toddler who's better than the average grown man at kicking in doors is already pretty impressive, even if some burly wizards happen to also be slightly stronger.

Okay, even setting aside how bizarre and absurd a suggestion this is, it's coming from the guy who was earlier complaining about rationalizing away low scores. If you think it's okay for a player to play their character as a baby -- and not just "okay", but what you recommend they do even though they've made it clear they want to play a character who is, at a minimum, a grown man -- then you do not get to say peep when someone states that they play Int 8 as "just book-dumb".

No. Just... no.

You were being sarcastic but it actually is a pretty good idea. In fact, I do this sometimes actually when I'm DMing. But there are concrete things about the low levels that I enjoy as a player, and don't want players to miss out on, so in any campaign intended to be lengthy I keep the variance small, typically "roll 1d3 for your level."

Ooh, a small variance. You might as well not even be doing it. That's like adding 1d3 to scores that are otherwise assigned through point buy. A variance of at least 1d10 would be more appropriate. After all, If you roll a Strength of 11, you have to wait eight levels to get to a Strength of 15 which the next guy might easily have rolled at the outset.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're being obtuse. Neither 11, nor 15, nor 16 fully realizes the Achilles character concept.

I'll be obtuse, as well, and note that not having the right STR isn't falling nearly as far short of Achilles as lacking invulnerability...

I like balanced games. I'm all for them.

Nice to know, but this is a D&D forum. ;P

I don't mind point buy but I know I am not nearly as creative with point buy as I am with rolling. Point buy only allows for balance if everyone builds for combat (high ac, high hp, high damage stat).

If the game fails to balance combat vs the other 'pillars' (or to balance PCs w/in each pillar) in the first place, sure.

That's why I can't play as interesting of characters with point buy. All my points are already predetermined based on what stats my class features and defenses key on. For example I can't play a charismatic monk without sacrificing my combat effectiveness.

Meh. Whether you do it or the dice do it for you, it's sacrificed. Smart fighter, charismatic Monk, strong Wizard - D&D just isn't there for 'em.

And it will be said that charisma offers it's own benefits. Well if it does why can I play a full caster sorcerer or bard where maxing charisma still helps my combat effectiveness?

Because INT, WIS, &c also have their own benefits. OK, no, the stats aren't exactly robustly balanced that way, but in theory that's 'why.'

That's why I find rolling more interesting. My monk can be just as charismatic as the parties sorcerer without losing combat effectiveness. Is that fair?

No, just random. You want to play a good-CHA Monk, you'll roll low CHA just as easily as high CHA + otherwise good stats for a Monk (which is not all that easily) - you might well end up with a low-CHA character who doesn't have the stats to be a viable Monk, anyway.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If they are so attached to this fantasy, and you want to give it to them, why not just let them pick stats freeform? Why even bother will point buy? Why satisfy some fantasies and not others, based on numerology?

"And the number of thy stats shall be 27. No more, no less."
"But Holy Father, what are stats? And why must 27 be the sum?"
"Hush. Question not the Writ, callow youth, lest the arbitrary DM smite thee."

Okay, I'm now going to share with you my super-secret tech for DMing. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

At the start of a campaign, I talk to my players about what sorts of characters they want to play and what sort of adventures they want to go on. Together, we pick a method of score generation that produces the characters they want, just like we pick the campaign's theme and tone and the available character races and so on. If they want to be demigods, they can be demigods. If they want to be exceptional but flawed people, they can be exceptional but flawed people. If they want to be comprehensively inept, they can be comprehensively inept. But it's their decision, not the decision of the dice.

I know. Mind-blowing, right? Remember: it's a secret!

 

[Lanefan]

The last time I played in a game where we rolled for stats we had 1 character that had 2 18s and no stat below 14. Another person (not me) had a high stat of 14 and all other stats 10 or below. They started out on extremely uneven footing and neither person was happy with the result.

The difference was not "a few points", the difference was that one person could run whatever character they wanted and be a paragon of the class out of the gate and the other person was relegated to staying and the back while the big boys played hero.

No, the "other person" relegated him/herself (or allowed him/herself to be relegated) to the back by choice, where he/she could just as easily have stood in and given it what they had.

The first 3e character I ever rolled had amazing stats. The second, not so much - she averaged about 3 points lower per stat.

Guess which one lasted longer, by a huge margin. Here's a hint: it wasn't the first one.

The only thing random die rolls guarantee is that your results will be random. The results can, and in most cases will be, quite unfair.

You may enjoy that, and more power to you. I don't. It's as simple as that.

I just don't let it bother me too much, and make such lemonade as I can out of the lemons I sometimes get.

Lanefan

 

[Krachek]

Just make some rolls.
15,11,10,12,11,10
Honnest and playable,

 

[billd91]

What's a "gish class"?

One thematically based on the debut album by The Smashing Pumpkins.

 

[Oofta]

No, the "other person" relegated him/herself (or allowed him/herself to be relegated) to the back by choice, where he/she could just as easily have stood in and given it what they had.

The "other person" was significantly underpowered doing much less damage with significantly fewer hit points with far worse saves.

Yeah, they sure did feel heroic.

The first 3e character I ever rolled had amazing stats. The second, not so much - she averaged about 3 points lower per stat.

Guess which one lasted longer, by a huge margin. Here's a hint: it wasn't the first one.

Statistically speaking then, they were an anomaly.

I just don't let it bother me too much, and make such lemonade as I can out of the lemons I sometimes get.

Lanefan

I'm happy for you.

I just get tired of the implied "If you were a better role-player/person you would roll dice for stats and be happy with whatever you get". It's simply not the game I want to play.

 

[Oofta]

Why would you make them both dwarven fighters? If you're trying to pull your own weight in a two-man party, you don't make a second fighter.

Super Dave the Dwarven Fighter will appreciate having Reorx the Dwarven Cleric to bless him/heal him/conjure food and water; he would appreciate having Fizban the Human Wizard to do crowd control and divinations; he would appreciate having Merry the Swashbuckling Halfling to scout ahead and tell him where the weak targets are.

In fact, in a party with Super Dave the Fighter, even ANOTHER Super Dave the Fighter is potentially going to make someone feel overshadowed or redundant (depending on how vulnerable the players' feelings are and how much they need to feel unique). Your complaint just illustrates the fact that it's not about stats at all--it's about lack of player savvy.

I'll repeat my challenge:

Challenge: sketch out a group of three or four 9th level PCs with high stats (e.g. each one of them has two 18s and no stat under 14), who are so good that no 9th level PC I make with a high stat of 14 can meaningfully contribute to their adventures. (If you want to choose another level besides 9th you can, but it's best if it's at least 5th because at extremely low levels, table-dependent factors like equipment, social contacts, and DMing style will dominate--making it 9th level makes it easier to have an Internet discussion since you can point to concrete abilities.)

I assure you that I'm not going to make them all the same class.

I made two dwarven fighters because I don't want to compare apples to oranges.

Super Dave could obviously be anything.

As far as your challenge ... meh. What's the point? Could Lumpy contribute? Yes. But he's going to be hands down less effective than Super Dave in the same roll and the same class. Which is my point. I could make a character with a high stat of 8 that "could contribute". But what value does that add to the game to force someone to play that character if they don't want to?