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

[dagger]

One of the things I have a problem with is that if 3-18 is the normal range of stats for a person (barring curse/disease) then a 4 intelligence for example is not just "slow". It's mentally handicapped and probably not able to function in society without assistance. At a certain point a low stat is not "fluff" as far as I'm concerned.

It just sets up weird things where the guy with the low intelligence and wisdom is played by a smart person and their character is still making brilliant suggestions. I want to allow them to have fun, but at the same hand someone with the intelligence of a baboon should not be a criminal adventuring mastermind.

But that's just my pet peeve. To me, ability scores are more than just "fluff" and if you don't play that way it's fine.

The veterans at our table often make role playing choices based of what makes up there characters as a whole, including really low stats. A player with a dumb or unwise character doing or saying dumb or unwise things is part of the fun! My dark elf fighter often makes poor choices during combat/role play, even to his own (and the parties) detriment.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If you want to make a game where random determination of stats has bigger impact on gameplay, I think you need less classes, but with more features that can actually use the different stats.

People complain about classes with MAD, but I actually would like to see way more MAD. Or maybe not "Multiple Ability Dependency" so much as "Multiple Ability Liberty": a game where you can play an 18 Str 10 Int fighter, or a 14 Str 14 Int fighter, and they're both effective, just in different ways.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You mean like Fighters put their highest stat in Intelligence, and wizards but their best stat in Charisma, that sort of thing? I feel like it's one of those things that sounds more interesting that it would actually turn out. People don't give Intelligence to fighters because fighters have no way to leverage that Intelligence, outside of what any class could do. They would play differently, but ultimately they simply would do the things they normally do less effectively.

If you want to make a game where random determination of stats has bigger impact on gameplay, I think you need less classes, but with more features that can actually use the different stats.

I'm sure such an experiment would vary depending on the table. I know my players, and I am positive it would be a fun experiment to try. For example, a fighter with a high intelligence would be more like Sherlock Holmes, and identify things in the environment to give advantage in combat, like how if you interact with object Y, it can cause a negative effect on the opponents. Something a fighter with lower intelligence wouldn't be able to figure out. And that's just the combat phase. The other two pillars would be much more affected.

My group does not get hung up on +'s or -'s in our game, and really don't care about a +1 or +2 difference, let alone optimizing. There is so much more to the game that attributes affect other than a pre-defined attack roll. And not maxing out your rolls doesn't have that big of an impact on a PC's effectiveness. Yeah, a wizard might be able to figure out the same thing above as the fighter, but the fighter still has heavy armor, fighter features, and much higher HP so he could be involved down and dirty into combat and attempt these things where a wizard wouldn't do so well.

Besides, I think it would be a great way for players to learn different ways to play various classes, as opposed to the "always max out your key attributes" which tends to lead to the same way you play each one.

 

[Oofta]

The veterans at our table often make role playing choices based of what makes up there characters as a whole, including really low stats. A player with a dumb or unwise character doing or saying dumb or unwise things is part of the fun! My dark elf fighter often makes poor choices during combat/role play, even to his own (and the parties) detriment.

I get "slow". I had a fighter with an 8 wisdom that rarely thought through what he was going to do, just did the first thing that came to mind. He might realize later that it was dumb (he had a decent intelligence) but in the moment? No wisdom, kick in the door.

What I'm talking about is people that say that a 3 intelligence is "slow". If 3-18 represents the span of normal human ability, a 3 is not "slow", it's mentally handicapped and less functional than Forest Gump.

As always that's just, like, my opinion man.

 

[FrogReaver]

What intelligence would we assign to forest Gump?

 

[ccs]

People complain about classes with MAD, but I actually would like to see way more MAD. Or maybe not "Multiple Ability Dependency" so much as "Multiple Ability Liberty": a game where you can play an 18 Str 10 Int fighter, or a 14 Str 14 Int fighter, and they're both effective, just in different ways.

Have you considered Dungeons & Dragons?

 

[Oofta]

What intelligence would we assign to forest Gump?

Personally? Somewhere around 6. He's slow, but high functioning slow. He was literate and could communicate ideas reasonably well. Well, and having the "lucky" feat didn't hurt.

Of course the mapping of real world (or movie character) capabilities to ability scores is an estimation at best. I have a general feel for average intelligence, we have Einstein-like intelligence at the high end. At the (fortunately extremely rare) low end? People who can't live independently, have a hard time comprehending or making full sentences, can't read.

I'm sure different people would make a different estimate.

 

[Seule]

(Snipped) They wouldn't know what stat envy is.

Stat envy is when someone else's character is better at what your character's main schtick is than you are. It is trivial to imagine a party where the Bard (primary stat Charisma) has a lower Perform score than several other characters simply because they had a spare 16+ to stick into that stat while the Bard had nothing over 13. Or even lower. Similarly, a Fighter having a lower attack bonus than the Wizard, or whatever else you want to measure that other characters can theoretically try.
I'm not saying that rolled stats are bad necessarily, I'm just saying that if you use rolled stats you have to take into account that it can go badly. I want my randomness during play, not in determining which characters are more powerful.
This page (http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/) shows that the odds of getting at least 1 14+ are about 92.8%. That means that an entire party rolling up stats, the odds are pretty good (each has a 7.2%, or about 1/14) that someone will have a dud array and be good at precisely nothing. It's about the same odds, in fact, that someone will have an 18+ (9.34%). I'll take the certainly of having a playable character who can contribute over the chance of having a powerhouse... who will then overshadow other characters if I'm not careful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Stat envy is when someone else's character is better at what your character's main schtick is than you are. It is trivial to imagine a party where the Bard (primary stat Charisma) has a lower Perform score than several other characters simply because they had a spare 16+ to stick into that stat while the Bard had nothing over 13. Or even lower. Similarly, a Fighter having a lower attack bonus than the Wizard, or whatever else you want to measure that other characters can theoretically try.

A meaningful shtick isn't (shouldn't be) "having an attack bonus". It is "physical combat", sometimes more specifically "archery" or "physical control." Fighters get features that make them better at these roles than wizards, even wizards with good stats.

If you roll up an array like 10, 12, 11, 9, 8, 10, there is still nothing stopping you from assuming the "good at physical combat" shtick. You just do it differently. You can be a Swashbuckler or a Moon Druid--either one works fine. You could also pick a different shtick.

Edit: If Perform is the bard's main shtick, why isn't his Expertise in Perform? That will make up for the lower stat and then some.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Stat envy is when someone else's character is better at what your character's main schtick is than you are. It is trivial to imagine a party where the Bard (primary stat Charisma) has a lower Perform score than several other characters simply because they had a spare 16+ to stick into that stat while the Bard had nothing over 13. Or even lower. Similarly, a Fighter having a lower attack bonus than the Wizard, or whatever else you want to measure that other characters can theoretically try.
I'm not saying that rolled stats are bad necessarily, I'm just saying that if you use rolled stats you have to take into account that it can go badly. I want my randomness during play, not in determining which characters are more powerful.
This page (http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/) shows that the odds of getting at least 1 14+ are about 92.8%. That means that an entire party rolling up stats, the odds are pretty good (each has a 7.2%, or about 1/14) that someone will have a dud array and be good at precisely nothing. It's about the same odds, in fact, that someone will have an 18+ (9.34%). I'll take the certainly of having a playable character who can contribute over the chance of having a powerhouse... who will then overshadow other characters if I'm not careful.

A meaningful shtick isn't (shouldn't be) "having an attack bonus". It is "physical combat", sometimes more specifically "archery" or "physical control." Fighters get features that make them better at these roles than wizards, even wizards with good stats.

If you roll up an array like 10, 12, 11, 9, 8, 10, there is still nothing stopping you from assuming the "good at physical combat" shtick. You just do it differently. You can be a Swashbuckler or a Moon Druid--either one works fine. You could also pick a different shtick.

I can see both points, but the bolded part I think hits the difference in preferences. For example, I tend to agree with Hemlock on this for the same reasons he gave. But obviously Seule looks at it differently, and has different opinions on what "good" is. From my interpretation, in order to be "good", a PC has to have the higher/highest numerical bonus in a particular aspect, especially better than other party members.

Whereas with Hemlock (and myself), what makes a class good or not is the entire picture, like even if a fighter has a lower bonus to hit over a rogue based on ability score alone, the fighter has other class features that makes him still "good" at melee combat, even better than other classes.