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

[FrogReaver]

Sounds like a great argument in favor of refills for low stats!

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?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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".

You're committing the equivocation fallacy. I have criticized rationalizing away low scores, making them of no effect. You're falsely equating that with the PHB's suggestion you can use age, among other things, to explain your ability scores.

Furthermore, you're the one who already chose the mythic genre when you brought up Achilles and Beowulf and claimed that having Str 11 gets in the way of pretending to be a mythic hero. Within the context of mythic heroism, feats of strength at an early age are commonplace, even if those feats of strength are not difficult by the standards of D&D heroes. "Killed him a bear/When he was only three." Can you kill a bear with "only " Str 11? Sure. (Daniel Boone^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDavey Crockett.) Can you kill two snakes with Str 11? Sure. (Heracles.) It's not remarkable for a 3rd level PC, but it would be remarkable for a baby. Since you're the one who wants to be a mythic hero in this hypothetical, you're the one who wants to be "bizarre and absurd" like Heracles or Achilles, and you don't get to turn around and try to blame me for the fact that your character's history is "bizarre and absurd."

No. Just... no.

Right back at you, sir.

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.

You still haven't responded to the meat of the question: if you're not okay with characters who take some time to realize their concept, why don't you insist on PCs who start out with their ideal stats, at their ideal level? (Might as well add "with their ideal treasure" too.) It's not like there aren't RPGs which do this. GURPS, for instance, is primarily about playing PC who's already mature. There is a small amount of character advancement over time, but it's on the order of getting 25-50% stronger over the course of play, whereas D&D is about getting 2000% stronger over the course of play. If you're willing to be patient with your Achilles concept until he becomes a great warrior (Level 1 => 20), why is it impossible to be patient while he grows to be a strong warrior at the same time (Str 11 => 20, or higher)?

Don't bother answering that. I already know you don't have a satisfactory answer.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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...

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

You made me laugh twice in a single post, Tony. Have XP.

 

[Ashkelon]

Side note:

I really liked the method from Gamma World that was loosely based on 4e.

It worked something like this:
You rolled for your mutations randomly. Your primary mutation gave a 16 in its primary attribute and your secondary mutation gave a 14 in its primary attribute. If both primary and secondary mutations modified the same attribute, you would get an 18 to start in your primary attribute.

After your primary and secondary attributes were determined, you would roll 3d6 in order for the remaining attributes.

This ensured that you were competent in the areas you were supposed to be but still provided for the "organic" feel of rolling stats.

This can be adopted in 5e by saying class provides a 16 in its primary attribute and race provides a 14 in its primary attribute and the rest of the stats can be rolled for.

For example, a half elf fighter would have a 16 Str and 14 Cha before racial bonuses and before rolling for the rest of their attributes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

I'm not telling you what to do or to play. If you don't find playing blondes fun, you don't have to ever play a blonde. De gustibus, etc.

But the language you keep using is to tell people that PCs with low stats are "overshadowed" by PCs with high stats, can't contribute, etc. E.g.

[T]he 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.

This is not true--or at least it is not true that they were necessarily relegated as opposed to self-relegated by their own choices--and the reason it is false is BECAUSE apples aren't oranges. In 5E, apples don't overshadow oranges, regardless of stats. If Super Dave is an awesome fighter with an amazing DPR, Amazing Kate can still be an amazing healer despite not having "amazing" stats, and the fact that Alternate Universe Super Dave would be a marginally more amazing healer if his player had made different choices has very little effect on play.

Whenever you stick to just saying, "I don't enjoy that style," I have nothing to say against you. But when you say things like, "the other person was relegated to staying and the back while the big boys played hero" and try to blame it on the stats, I have to correct the record. That is a player problem, not a stat problem.

That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to your feelings.

Learned helplessness: a condition in which a person suffers from a sense of powerlessness, arising from a traumatic event or persistent failure to succeed. It is thought to be one of the underlying causes of depression.

I'm sorry for anyone who suffers feelings like this when someone has better stats than you, or more treasure, or a better build, or better luck on dice, or whatever. I hope you feel better at some point.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

That's usualy how I like character creation. In my current campaign I betrayed myself and went the ''normal'' way, but my players dont try to min-max everything: I have a Tiefling Champion, Half-orc life cleric, a halfling GOO warlock and a Human mystic. Next time I'll go back to the same method you use, just because it makes more sense. I dont understand why this isnt the basic way of doing it.

Because when I'm told I'm going to play in a Curse of Strahd game, or game all about demon slaying, and I want to roll a paladin, I don't basically want to be told to go **** myself by the randomness of dice when I roll: Str 3, Dex 5, and Cha 6. At that point I either ask my DM to let me use the array, allow me to reroll stats until I get something usable (defeating the whole purpose of the 4d6 method), or create the most suicidal character imaginable, just so I can reroll quicker. And if I roll straight 18s I'm likely to retire the character session 1, growing bored of this party of "lesser mortals". It's a team game and I've no desire to be the only star. And I wouldn't blame my pcs for doing the same.

Don't misunderstand, I enjoy the idea of doing a character randomly based on how the dice roll if I can't think of an idea, but many people come up with a character FIRST before ever even touching the dice or a pencil, and forced rolling in order completely screws over those players. Now, what I am cool with is the idea of doing 4 rolls, one high stat, one low stat, and letting them allocate which score is which. It guarantees they won't be worthless or Mary sues without a weakness, and still keeps some level of randomness.

 

[cbwjm]

I think most DMs who use random rolls allow a player to reroll completely hopeless characters such as the theoretical PC with a 3, 4, and 6 which, incidentally, doesn't defeat the purpose of the die roll method. I'm also not sure how many enforce the "roll stats in order rule" but it can be quite a good one, it allows players to create based on the stats which might lead them to play something they never would have considered otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I think most DMs who use random rolls allow a player to reroll completely hopeless characters such as the theoretical PC with a 3, 4, and 6 which, incidentally, doesn't defeat the purpose of the die roll method. I'm also not sure how many enforce the "roll stats in order rule" but it can be quite a good one, it allows players to create based on the stats which might lead them to play something they never would have considered otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

You say allow, I say forces, and this is coming from someone who enjoys the challenge of an int 8 wizard...when I know that's what I'm getting into. The cost of this incentive to play characters that players might not have considered is the fairly decent chance other players get completely screwed out of playing the character they wanted to play, to say nothing of the concerns of leaving cohesive party composition to the fate of the dice, and the fact that practically all types of characters one could end up rolling are still doable with the array or point buy, except those who are gratuitously overpowered or weak.

Additionally, once the DM start allowing rerolls it does in fact invalidate the original 4d6 method because it removes the elements of randomness to the creation process and leaves you entirely up to the whims of the DM as to what is "good enough". Hell, I've seen some power gamer DM's NOT allow anything less than a 16 in your primary stat before, and this does not address the issue of some characters ending up being stronger than others. Balancing the game around one player with straight 16-18s another with straight 10s, and even the rest as average is a veritable nightmare. I'm not saying it's not doable and point buy is perfect, but when I have to jump through multiple extra hoops as a DM AND start throwing out multiple caveats to the rolling process (to say nothing of players trying to cheat the dice) just to make the game more "fair", I'll take point buy any day. If I want my players stronger, I'll just give them a few more points to spend.

Also, this completely ignores another concern: ability score increases. In any game with fears lucky players end up VERY overpowered because they can pick up multiple extra feats, and in any game without, they very quickly have the opposite problem, their characters end up with no room to grow and end up boring because of it. Meanwhile, unlucky rolling players spend their entire time increasing their scores just so they can actually function, and the gap just grows wider.

As far as the enforcing the order with rolls, that isn't the default rules (to my knowledge), but a relic of an older time from first edition.

 

[Lanefan]

Because when I'm told I'm going to play in a Curse of Strahd game, or game all about demon slaying, and I want to roll a paladin, I don't basically want to be told to go **** myself by the randomness of dice when I roll: Str 3, Dex 5, and Cha 6.

Hmmm...seems to me your dice are just trying their best to save you from playing a Paladin.

Just sayin'...

 

[cbwjm]

You say allow, I say forces, and this is coming from someone who enjoys the challenge of an int 8 wizard...when I know that's what I'm getting into. The cost of this incentive to play characters that players might not have considered is the fairly decent chance other players get completely screwed out of playing the character they wanted to play, to say nothing of the concerns of leaving cohesive party composition to the fate of the dice, and the fact that practically all types of characters one could end up rolling are still doable with the array or point buy, except those who are gratuitously overpowered or weak.

Additionally, once the DM start allowing rerolls it does in fact invalidate the original 4d6 method because it removes the elements of randomness to the creation process and leaves you entirely up to the whims of the DM as to what is "good enough". Hell, I've seen some power gamer DM's NOT allow anything less than a 16 in your primary stat before, and this does not address the issue of some characters ending up being stronger than others. Balancing the game around one player with straight 16-18s another with straight 10s, and even the rest as average is a veritable nightmare. I'm not saying it's not doable and point buy is perfect, but when I have to jump through multiple extra hoops as a DM AND start throwing out multiple caveats to the rolling process (to say nothing of players trying to cheat the dice) just to make the game more "fair", I'll take point buy any day. If I want my players stronger, I'll just give them a few more points to spend.

Also, this completely ignores another concern: ability score increases. In any game with fears lucky players end up VERY overpowered because they can pick up multiple extra feats, and in any game without, they very quickly have the opposite problem, their characters end up with no room to grow and end up boring because of it. Meanwhile, unlucky rolling players spend their entire time increasing their scores just so they can actually function, and the gap just grows wider.

As far as the enforcing the order with rolls, that isn't the default rules (to my knowledge), but a relic of an older time from first edition.

Well, all I know is that my friends and I have had lots of fun with random stats and I disagree with pretty much everything you say about it. Clearly random stats just aren't your cup of tea so stick with point buy.