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

[pming]

Hiya!

You're equivocating between two different meanings of the word "hero". You're talking about a "hero" in the modern sense of a character like Sam Gamgee: an inspiringly brave and moral figure who achieves great things sometimes in spite of his or her limitations. And you're absolutely correct that playing this kind of hero is independent of one's ability scores -- if there's anything on your character sheet that's relevant to it, it's just the alignment field. But @Oofta was pretty clearly talking about a "hero" in the older sense of a figure like Achilles or Beowulf: an outstanding doer of deeds, moral compass sold separately. And if you want to play a mighty warrior of this sort, then yes, it is absolutely a problem when, through no fault of your own, your character sheet says you only have a Strength of 11.

So before you start pointing fingers at anyone, please try to understand what is actually being discussed.

Err...ok. Let me define "hero" as far as I see it. A hero is someone who is ill-equipped to deal with some situation, but does it anyway even knowing his/her death is highly likely. A hero is someone who chooses to take that bar of gold they saw drop out of an armored car, and returns it knowing full well they are giving up a fortune. A hero is someone who says yes to a noble cause, and no to an ignoble one. A hero is that guy nobody ever hears about who saved the planet...and he's cool with that. Achilles and Beowulf? They are not what I would consider "heroes". They are what I would consider "adventurers". They do what they do because, well, it's what they do and what they were forced to do via luck, Fate, "the gods", revenge, etc.

You mention Samwise; He is, imho, the epitome of what it is to be a Hero. He did it out of loyalty to Frodo, sure, but he ultimately kept to that love and loyalty because it was simply in his nature. He didn't have The One Ring. He wasn't "blessed by the gods", or cursed by them. He wasn't a"chosen one" of any prophesy or legend. He was a simple hobbit who loved his friends, gardening, and ale, and wanted to see that life kept safe. If following a cursed friend into the heart of Mordor to help defeat a supremely powerful, evil being...so be it. He knew he was ill-equipped to do it...but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do to help his friends and home.

Now...with regards to "high stats and heroes and heroines of D&D"...I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I speak about Players who either have it in them...or don't. Some (rare) players can "fake it" for a while, but it usually becomes clear that they are being "heroes" because they like feeling superior and special. They want the accolaids. They want the "badges". They want the recognition. They want to be able to boast about how they slew an incarnation of Tiamate. They want to proclaim to the world "Yes, that was I who struck the final blow upon Demogorgons heart". Nothing wrong with that from an RPG perspective; most RP'ing is enjoyment from patting oneself on the back for whatever thing they managed to "do well" (role play, puzzle solve, political intrigue, military tactics...or "power building" a character's mechanics).

But...claiming that you can't play a "hero" with low stats? Well, to be blunt, that's just popycock, hogwash, and jiggery-pokery. If you roll a character with an 11 Strength, then you simply don't try and play Hercules. If your character has a 9 Dexterity, you simply don't try and play Robin Hood. I really don't get it when someone claims that random-roll is "bad because you can't play what you want". With random rolling, you generally either don't have a character concept to begin with...or you have a very broad one. "I want to play a sort of ex-soldier in the Kings army" <--- that's a great concept for a random character. "I want to play a mix of Conan and Robin Hood. He's real strong, and healthy, but has awesome reflexes and hand-eye coordination. He will use a special 'signature bow' created just for him" <--- that is a horrible concept for a random character.

Bottom line. I think people who poo-poo random rolling are ones who want to be able to do the second type of character concept. Not a bad thing, just a personal preference. However, random rolling is the default method of character creation in 5e...so I can only assume that the designers were aiming for the first type of character concept...roll first, ask questions later.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[billd91]

I really don't get it when someone claims that random-roll is "bad because you can't play what you want". With random rolling, you generally either don't have a character concept to begin with...or you have a very broad one. "I want to play a sort of ex-soldier in the Kings army" <--- that's a great concept for a random character. "I want to play a mix of Conan and Robin Hood. He's real strong, and healthy, but has awesome reflexes and hand-eye coordination. He will use a special 'signature bow' created just for him" <--- that is a horrible concept for a random character.

Yep, with point buy sorts of generation, you bring the fairly fully formed character. With die rolling, you reveal the tools that will lead to the character

 

[Oofta]

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

So C.H.E.A.T.*?

If you adjust scores to be what you want them to be, why roll in the first place? We used to do this - long before point buy was ever mentioned in the books - but point buy just feels more ... I dunno ... honest. Since I don't want a truly random character, why pretend? If I want stats starting higher than 15, I don't need to roll dice to do it. I just use a different point buy system.


* Creative Hero Enhanced Attribute Templates

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

Ah yes, once again "If you were a better role-player/person you would love playing the inferior character! Because random is awesome! Don't agree, you must be a loser! Why? Because random is awesome!" Rinse and repeat.

Listen, I don't really care all that much. I decided long, long ago to use my own variation of point buy after I was first introduced to it in a Living City campaign. But I still get tired of the backhanded insults. You aren't the worst offender - that would be the guy that flat out stated that "rolling for stats weeds out the bad players". But still.

When you go to a standard blockbuster non-comedy action movie, who is the focus of the action? The normal Joes? Nope. It's James Bond, Jason Bourne, Wonder Woman. People who are just plain better at what they do because they are faster/stronger/smarter than the average person. Those are the people we aspire to be, the icons we want to imitate. Not Joe the Schmuck Janitor.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Err...ok. Let me define "hero" as far as I see it.

When you take a word in a discussion and redefine it from how it was being used, then what you have to say will not be relevant to the discussion. You get that, right?

Bottom line. I think people who poo-poo random rolling are ones who want to be able to do the second type of character concept. Not a bad thing, just a personal preference. However, random rolling is the default method of character creation in 5e...so I can only assume that the designers were aiming for the first type of character concept...roll first, ask questions later.

Random rolling and the standard array are presented as alternatives in the same paragraph. The sample character being built, Bruenor, uses the standard array. I think it's fair to say that the designers were aware of and open to both styles of play. And if you really think that neither is bad and it's just a matter of personal preference, you ought to welcome this, rather than trying to claim designer favor for your own preference as if that meant something.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

You're doubling down on your commitment to "Just play a baby!" being a sane and sensible recommendation, and claiming that wanting to be a mythic hero in a fantasy roleplaying game is "bizarre and absurd". I don't feel like I even have to respond to that.

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?

I'm perfectly okay with characters taking some time to realize their concept. I'm not okay with characters taking an uncertain and wildly variant amount of time to realize their concept. Let's say I want to play a strong character. Well, according to the rules, it's entirely possible for a fighter to start with 15 Strength at level 1. It doesn't break the game. It's not like I'm expecting 9th-level spells right out of the gate. There is an alternate universe where I roll that 15 and get the perfectly legal and normal character that I want to play. But in this universe, I roll an 11 and therefore have to wait half a campaign to get to that point.

It is not unreasonable to find this prospect frustrating.

(All the more so if my DM, rather than recognizing that there's a problem, carefully considers the most ridiculous things he could suggest before settling on "Why don't you just play a baby?")

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

That says more about you than it does about me.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Ah yes, once again "If you were a better role-player/person you would love playing the inferior character! Because random is awesome! Don't agree, you must be a loser! Why? Because random is awesome!" Rinse and repeat.

Listen, I don't really care all that much. I decided long, long ago to use my own variation of point buy after I was first introduced to it in a Living City campaign. But I still get tired of the backhanded insults. You aren't the worst offender - that would be the guy that flat out stated that "rolling for stats weeds out the bad players". But still.

When you go to a standard blockbuster non-comedy action movie, who is the focus of the action? The normal Joes? Nope. It's James Bond, Jason Bourne, Wonder Woman. People who are just plain better at what they do because they are faster/stronger/smarter than the average person. Those are the people we aspire to be, the icons we want to imitate. Not Joe the Schmuck Janitor.

What do you have against janitors? And you guys do know that Achilles was a schmuck, right? Or have you not read The Illiad? Honest Joe the Janitor is a better person by far...

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[KahlessNestor]

I tend to use the 4d6 assign anywhere. You get 1 roll. If you don't like it, then you can use the standard array. It gives a nice floor of competance while also giving you a negative. But then I have been DMing newbies. I lije the idea of running with what you roll.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I tend to use the 4d6 assign anywhere. You get 1 roll. If you don't like it, then you can use the standard array. It gives a nice floor of competance while also giving you a negative. But then I have been DMing newbies. I lije the idea of running with what you roll.

My favorite way is to tell players that if they roll up a PC and then want to retire them immediately, they can, but:

(1) The PC needs to actually be in a playable state (name, class, distinctive characteristics), and then you need to give that PC to me as DM for use as an NPC;
(2) You also need to give me five NPCs rolled up on 3d6 at the same time.

The 3d6 NPCs is to keep stat inflation from happening--players are more likely to realize that e.g. Str 14 is actually quite a big deal, making you probably the strongest guy in any given room--while still giving an escape valve for anyone who really hates their PC enough to want to retire it immediately. Furthermore, players are more invested in NPCs that they had a hand in creating. When that armored, masked figure gives off "a whiff of strawberries", the player who created Jan the Space Genie gets excited--even if Jan never takes off his mask due to the way events play out.

Interestingly enough, no one has ever taken me up on this offer yet and given me five NPCs and a PC. They just play the characters that they roll. (I know what I know about NPCs from other occasions when I've had players create NPCs for me.) But it lets me be confident that if I really did have a situation like Oofta describes, where Oofta's wife and friend both hated their PCs enough to want to commit suicide, it wouldn't be an issue at my table because they could just donate those PCs to me instead.

And I would then have lots of fun using them as rivals to the party or as villains.

 

[Soul Stigma]

Ah yes, once again "If you were a better role-player/person you would love playing the inferior character! Because random is awesome! Don't agree, you must be a loser! Why? Because random is awesome!" Rinse and repeat.

Listen, I don't really care all that much. I decided long, long ago to use my own variation of point buy after I was first introduced to it in a Living City campaign. But I still get tired of the backhanded insults. You aren't the worst offender - that would be the guy that flat out stated that "rolling for stats weeds out the bad players". But still.

When you go to a standard blockbuster non-comedy action movie, who is the focus of the action? The normal Joes? Nope. It's James Bond, Jason Bourne, Wonder Woman. People who are just plain better at what they do because they are faster/stronger/smarter than the average person. Those are the people we aspire to be, the icons we want to imitate. Not Joe the Schmuck Janitor.

One thing I'll note for the sake of discussion: James Bond, Jason Bourne and Wonder Woman would not be considered 1st level characters just starting out. They have been what they are for some time and thus are super awesome at what they do.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app