Rolling Vs. Point Buy: Stats & Discussion

[strangebloke]

The most important part, imo, to determine stat generation is THE PLAYERS.

I personally prefer rolling, but player emotions are more important. Do the players trust each other? Do they mind if another character has better stats than they do? Do they enjoy the trials and tribulations of all the characters? Can they enjoy playing an "inferior" character?

If any of those answers are no, then point buy or array is what should be used.

trust can be countered via rolling in front of the DM, and I strongly think that should happen anyway, but everything you bring up is a good point.

[Mister_Squinty]

I understand the love of rolling, but the 3-18 range is too much of a pain in the ass.

The compromise that I have found works best is 2d6+6. It gives a slight bump to point buy range (8-18), while keeping a sane average (13). If you want extra stats, do 3d6 drop lowest +6.

I also agree with letting everyone use the same array if you do allow rolling. Makes the DM job easier if everyone is on the same general level, and helps prevent jealousy. One fun concept was to have everyone roll one or two stats, then combine them for a party array.

[Pex]

Point Buy is fine. I hate 5E's implementation of it due to its absolute forbiddance of having an 18 at 1st level, which is not an abomination apocalypse of all that is gamedom. 3E/4E/Pathfinder does it fine. Pathfinder's version is my favorite, and I don't always choose to have an 18 at first level and sometimes purposely take an 8 or 7.

As for dice rolling, of course the luck factor is there but you need not be slave to the dice. If everyone rolled good arrays but one unfortunate fellow rolled poorly, let the player reroll and don't sweat it. It's not unfair to the other players because they already have their good arrays. The player rerolling does not hurt them in anyway.

If the opposite happens where everyone rolled a good array but one player rolled phenomenal, DM judgment to just continue on with the game but it could be alright if a couple of scores were lowered just a tad to match everyone else. Alternatively, let the player keep his phenomenal array and give everyone else a free +2 to one score or +1 to two scores to match him.

If a player rolls mediocre you could let him reroll or tweek what he has. DM fiat one score to be 18 but that includes any racial modifier. Perhaps do Ye Olde 2 for 1 or 1 for 1. A player can increase a score by 1 if he decreases another score by 2 or 1. Personal bias I would prefer 1 for 1.

In dice rolling players don't need to match perfectly. Having the arrays be in the same ballpark is good enough.

[Theodoxus]

I don't like rolling, always seems to create imbalance.

I like the suggestions some people have mentioned in similar threads of letting each player roll an array and any player can use any other player's array. That way you don't have to feel stuck if you get the bad rolls.

This had been my way of generating characters.

Now, I stick with point buy. As a DM, I like knowing that the DC for any spell at 1st level is going to be 13 at best. That their total attack bonus will be a max of +7 if a fighter or ranger archer and +5 otherwise (same with skill checks, with expertise).

Especially for new(er) players, or new to me players, I can quickly suss out which are bad at math, which are trying to cheat, and which just don't grok the mechanics, by simply how they react to my inquisitive look and "how did you get that total?"

In an established group though, after the first campaign, I'll just ask the players what they prefer to do. Some really like rolling - and I'll go back to allowing them to pick any rolled array.

[strangebloke]

Point Buy is fine. I hate 5E's implementation of it due to its absolute forbiddance of having an 18 at 1st level, which is not an abomination apocalypse of all that is gamedom. 3E/4E/Pathfinder does it fine. Pathfinder's version is my favorite, and I don't always choose to have an 18 at first level and sometimes purposely take an 8 or 7.

As for dice rolling, of course the luck factor is there but you need not be slave to the dice. If everyone rolled good arrays but one unfortunate fellow rolled poorly, let the player reroll and don't sweat it. It's not unfair to the other players because they already have their good arrays. The player rerolling does not hurt them in anyway.

If the opposite happens where everyone rolled a good array but one player rolled phenomenal, DM judgment to just continue on with the game but it could be alright if a couple of scores were lowered just a tad to match everyone else. Alternatively, let the player keep his phenomenal array and give everyone else a free +2 to one score or +1 to two scores to match him.

If a player rolls mediocre you could let him reroll or tweek what he has. DM fiat one score to be 18 but that includes any racial modifier. Perhaps do Ye Olde 2 for 1 or 1 for 1. A player can increase a score by 1 if he decreases another score by 2 or 1. Personal bias I would prefer 1 for 1.

In dice rolling players don't need to match perfectly. Having the arrays be in the same ballpark is good enough.

Right, and this was sort of my thought as well, the slight boost in variance is easily countered by a little fiat, and the massive boost in character variety is a huge boon.

I understand the love of rolling, but the 3-18 range is too much of a pain in the ass.

The compromise that I have found works best is 2d6+6. It gives a slight bump to point buy range (8-18), while keeping a sane average (13). If you want extra stats, do 3d6 drop lowest +6.

I also agree with letting everyone use the same array if you do allow rolling. Makes the DM job easier if everyone is on the same general level, and helps prevent jealousy. One fun concept was to have everyone roll one or two stats, then combine them for a party array.

I really like this, and may be stealing/using it. I ran the numbers, and it comes out to a very nice, smooth curve with slightly less variance than 4d6 drop lowest. a Party Array seems wonky though. I don't like the idea of having the same numbers as the guy across the table from me.

[Mister_Squinty]

I really like this, and may be stealing/using it. I ran the numbers, and it comes out to a very nice, smooth curve with slightly less variance than 4d6 drop lowest. a Party Array seems wonky though. I don't like the idea of having the same numbers as the guy across the table from me.

It's worked for me as it's just like everyone using the standard array, but with the thrill of everyone participating in making the stats everyone will sort. Your mileage may vary.

[Pelle]

As for dice rolling, of course the luck factor is there but you need not be slave to the dice. If everyone rolled good arrays but one unfortunate fellow rolled poorly, let the player reroll and don't sweat it. It's not unfair to the other players because they already have their good arrays. The player rerolling does not hurt them in anyway.

If the opposite happens where everyone rolled a good array but one player rolled phenomenal, DM judgment to just continue on with the game but it could be alright if a couple of scores were lowered just a tad to match everyone else. Alternatively, let the player keep his phenomenal array and give everyone else a free +2 to one score or +1 to two scores to match him.

If a player rolls mediocre you could let him reroll or tweek what he has. DM fiat one score to be 18 but that includes any racial modifier. Perhaps do Ye Olde 2 for 1 or 1 for 1. A player can increase a score by 1 if he decreases another score by 2 or 1. Personal bias I would prefer 1 for 1.

In dice rolling players don't need to match perfectly. Having the arrays be in the same ballpark is good enough.

Sure, this can be fine if everyone agrees with it. I find fiat after the fact to cheapen the purpose of rolling in the first place though, and I suspect my players would would not like having their stats reduced to match others, or getting special treatment because they rolled poorly.

I find it better to just agree in advance what is an acceptable power level and difference between players, and devicing a system that solves it fairly, including rerolls and adjustments.

[tyckspoon]

But XCOM: UFO Defense did seem to have wonky probabilities as I recollect it, probabilities which didn't match actual results in play. Even a weapon rated for only a 22% hit rate seems to hit significantly more often than that at close range, in my memory anyway. It's as if there are additional "scatter" rules on top of that % hit chance that can turn a near-miss into a hit under certain circumstances.

I never really figured out the armor rules either. Just "get the best armor you can afford and try not to get hit by a blaster bomb" was all I could really do; but I could never really quantify how dangerous it was for a guy in power armor to get hit by a heavy plasma weapon. Sometimes he dies instantly, sometimes he's fine, sometimes he's wounded, and sometimes armor degrades. Go figure.

Digression: UFO Defense's hit chance was the chance your shot would be perfectly on target. If you failed the hit roll, the shot would vary from the 'correct' path by some amount. It actually determined if something had been hit or not via the physics engine - that is, if the path of the shot intersected with something, that thing got hit, regardless of whether the shooter 'succeeded' on their hit roll or not; when you fired a shot, that shot was an independent game object that existed until it either ran into something or went off the map. That meant if you were point-blank on a target you effectively had close to a 100% hit chance regardless of the shooter's accuracy, because virtually every area where the shot could scatter still passed through the target's hitbox. It also meant if you were trying to hit a smaller target, you could miss it pretty easily (like, say, a half-height wall you wanted to shoot out of the way so your troops could pass through the gap) because you would 'hit' the top half of the box it was in and the shot would actually land in the grass on the square behind it.

Armor had a value, different for each facing (front, back, top, bottom, IIRC). It subtracted that value from the incoming hit, possibly reducing the damage to 0. The variance you're seeing is in the damage range of the weapons, and possibly some in the hit locations; basic pistols cannot roll high enough to pierce power armor at all from any angle, while heavy plasma can roll high enough to damage through any personal armor and potentially blow up weaker UFO walls. Blaster Bombs had the double benefit of both having an insanely high damage range and generally hitting the weaker top or bottom armor ratings, so they tended to destroy whatever they were aimed at up to and including sections of UFO bulkhead and ceilings.

.. End Digression.

[Selene Sparks]

I'm currently deciding between '1 guaranteed 15, roll for the rest' and 'use 4d6 drop lowest or point buy, whichever is better.'

I actually joined so I could post here, because this element of 5e is the one I feel strongest about.

This is a decent idea to help mitigate gross imbalance, but that doesn't address the underlying problems: Bounded accuracy and the ASI/feat split. Within the context of bounded accuracy, you're essentially always scrabbling for all those little +1s, and so an 18 is rather important, but more importantly, if you don't have one it means you're taking not getting feats until you do, unless they're +1 stat feats and you have an odd primary stat. This means that, essentailly, however much lower than that magic number you roll, you're that much more restricted from taking the things that differentiate your character from any other character of the same class. And that is a problem.

It's a multi-player party, and the avenue of competition is to be useful within the world. Any competent DM should be giving his players equal opportunity to shine, and it's much, much easier to balance an all-18s character against an all 10s character in 5E than a level 6 Fighter against a level 6 Druid in 3E.

I actually disagree here in that 3e druids are very good at BFC, support, and can actually, in my experience, handle deliberately lower power(Or seemingly lower power that makes everyone else look good) than a wizard or cleric. That requires mature players, admittedly, but in a good group it can be dealt with.

Well, duh. 3e eschewed balance as a concept.

That's not entirely fair. I think incompetence and/or working from a bad paradigm are more likely than a deliberate choice, given the mass systemic problems.

But all-18s are going to dominate the party to the point that its going to be reasonably difficult to give everyone a chance to shine. That +4 CHA is going to be bigger than the other guy's proficiency bonus for most of the game, so all of the 18-stat-guys are going to be better than the 10-stat-guys at everything that isn't a class feature.

In this, I firmly disagree. A +3 in a proficient field is going to be better than an untrained +4 at every level, and rogues or bards will be better at whatever skills they choose. And while they would be a better generalist, a strength 8 wizard will still beat a strength 18 fighter in strength checks over a quarter of the time.

I would add, that I think a guy with high stats imbalances things worse than a guy with all low stats.

Again, I disagree. Having a character being bad feels worse than a character being very good. If you're still adequate and someone else has god stats, you can simply take different roles and everyone still has a natural place in things, but if you've got a caster with their highest stat being 12, they're going to not just be weaker than the rest of the party, but be inadequate at their job. Being outperformed and being unable to contribute are two entirely different things, and the latter is dramatically worse than the former.

I agree that people who create their character concept before rolling their stats are more likely to be frustrated than people who do it the other way around.

Do people actually do this? I've never seen that, but admittedly I don't have a terribly large sample size.

This just isn't true unless the players don't know how to play or aren't mentally flexible. I defy you to create a PC with all 18s that completely dominates any character I could possibly create with all 10s. It can't be done, because levels and class features are more important than stats in 5E, and you only get to pick 20 levels out of a possible 200+. You will never be able to dominate all aspects of play on your own.

It's actually pretty easy. At level 5~, a wizard is a better combatant than literally any other class, and as things progress they remain better than everyone else with only clerics and bards who elect to poorly imitate them coming anywhere near close, and their general competence at everything as the game progresses allows them to be better than everyone else at more things. Of course, wizards can be mostly stat independent, especially at higher levels, but the only solution to a wizard with 18s is another wizard(Or bard or cleric poorly imitating a wizard, but the wizard is still notably superior), and if you've got that magic 18, you actually get feats so you can have good saves and still have a huge edge.

Nocan is not dominating play here--we're both playing the game.

Yes, but in that case you're using the best class in the game in the second most optimal role for it. Not that I'm entirely disagreeing, being in a different role means you can mitigate this, but the lower save DCs mean that, unless you're a diviner, casting SoLs in combat, other than the effectively saveless contagion, is pretty bad, and you're essentially forced into either being a complete gamebreaker or limiting yourself to pure buffs if you want to contribute meaningfully in combat.

[smcmike]

This is a decent idea to help mitigate gross imbalance, but that doesn't address the underlying problems: Bounded accuracy and the ASI/feat split. Within the context of bounded accuracy, you're essentially always scrabbling for all those little +1s, and so an 18 is rather important, but more importantly, if you don't have one it means you're taking not getting feats until you do, unless they're +1 stat feats and you have an odd primary stat. This means that, essentailly, however much lower than that magic number you roll, you're that much more restricted from taking the things that differentiate your character from any other character of the same class. And that is a problem.

I’m curious why 18 is your magic number, not 20? Either way, rolling stats makes it more likely you will hit that number early and move on to feats.

Not that I agree with your premise. My current character is doing feats before bringing any stat above 16.

[EdenIndustries]

When I first DM'd for 5E I wanted the players to use point-buy to make it more fair, but shortly thereafter I realized rolling is a lot more fun! That's how I've made all of my characters since then. But I do agree it comes down to what a player wants. For future games I DM, I'd offer each player the choice of point-buy, roll, or standard array based on what they want for the character.

One fun example of poor rolls making for an interesting character was my most recent character creation, a Wizard. I rolled pretty bad for him so I couldn't be the spell-slinging hero I envisioned. Instead I took spells like Disguise Self and Charm Person and tried to avoid confrontation, and it made for a very different and unique character!

So personally I like rolling since good or bad, I can make something fun and unique out of it. But again, for future games I DM I'd offer a choice to each player.

[strangebloke]

That's not entirely fair. I think incompetence and/or working from a bad paradigm are more likely than a deliberate choice, given the mass systemic problems.

Fair enough, I'm not going to guess at the creators' reasoning. But the system eschews balance, regardless of the creator's intentions.

In this, I firmly disagree. A +3 in a proficient field is going to be better than an untrained +4 at every level, and rogues or bards will be better at whatever skills they choose. And while they would be a better generalist, a strength 8 wizard will still beat a strength 18 fighter in strength checks over a quarter of the time.

I was comparing a +4 against a +0, and I noted that class features (like expertise) do change things. The general point is that having all good stats does imbalance the game and makes it hard for some characters to shine.

Again, I disagree. Having a character being bad feels worse than a character being very good. If you're still adequate and someone else has god stats, you can simply take different roles and everyone still has a natural place in things, but if you've got a caster with their highest stat being 12, they're going to not just be weaker than the rest of the party, but be inadequate at their job. Being outperformed and being unable to contribute are two entirely different things, and the latter is dramatically worse than the former.

Yeah, I said literally the reverse of my intent. I agree with you hear.

Do people actually do this? I've never seen that, but admittedly I don't have a terribly large sample size.

Yes! For dungeon run beer-and-pizza games, sure! I've rolled stats in order before.

It's actually pretty easy. At level 5~, a wizard is a better combatant than literally any other class, and as things progress they remain better than everyone else with only clerics and bards who elect to poorly imitate them coming anywhere near close, and their general competence at everything as the game progresses allows them to be better than everyone else at more things. Of course, wizards can be mostly stat independent, especially at higher levels, but the only solution to a wizard with 18s is another wizard(Or bard or cleric poorly imitating a wizard, but the wizard is still notably superior), and if you've got that magic 18, you actually get feats so you can have good saves and still have a huge edge.

I would actually pick a Lore bard for the 'better at everything' example. With all 18s and Jack of All Trades, he's going to be literally better at every skill, has better healing magic than anyone, and will still deal more damage in melee than your character thanks to the blade cantrips, and has more than enough spare magical secrets to short up any differences. The only area where he loses out in is utility magic, and maybe some specific spells. Even if there are niche areas where an all-ten character can beat him, those are going to be very narrow niches indeed, and we've all heard the story of BMX bandit and Angel Summoner.

[strangebloke]

I’m curious why 18 is your magic number, not 20? Either way, rolling stats makes it more likely you will hit that number early and move on to feats.

Not that I agree with your premise. My current character is doing feats before bringing any stat above 16.

18 has been shown by some numbers folks to be the highest amount that the game ever assumes you'll reach, based off of monster AC and saves. A 20 is nice, but the math for going from 18-20 is less favorable than the math for going from 16-18.

[SociopathFriend]

I've only done stat-buying once and... frankly hated that entire campaign (Evil campaign, with power-gamers, in an established multiverse the DM already had and could basically allow you to adventure for any item you could think of, you can guess how that went) so I couldn't tell you how well I like it without bias.

I've always preferred roll 4d6, reroll 1s, take the 3 highest method and that's your stat for rolling. Usually the DMs I work with also have some sort of system for determining if your overall stats are too low but I don't know what it is.

I like rolling because I seem to be good at it. The only time I ever roll high is for stats and the group has seen me do it. It's not uncommon for me to walk away from stat generation with two stats at 17-18 followed by everything else being positive in modifiers. I don't have the sheet on me but I believe Jat (my current Chult Fighter) had 19 for Str, 16 for Dex, and 18 for Con. His other stats aren't uber-good but they're not negative.

[Selene Sparks]

I’m curious why 18 is your magic number, not 20?

I apologize that I was unclear. 18 was the "magic number" of rolling, because that means you can start with a 20.

Either way, rolling stats makes it more likely you will hit that number early and move on to feats.

Yes, you are because point buy arbitrarily restricts you from that magic number, and that's a problem. That means that rolling is heavily incentivized, so you can be good at your job and can take interesting abilities, but even 4d6k3 has a large variance, which can be disruptive to interparty balance, especially with MAD classes.

Seriously, making rolling the better option is bad because rolling for stats is a worse system than point buy. Point buy ensures the party is balanced. And this, I think, is rather obvious to anyone who's had a PB15~ equivalent character in the same party as PB45~ equivalent character.

Not that I agree with your premise. My current character is doing feats before bringing any stat above 16.

I'm not saying you can't do that. You totally can, and if you prefer doing so, then you should do so and have fun, because that's what's most important. But the system heavily incentivizes not doing that.

Fair enough, I'm not going to guess at the creators' reasoning. But the system eschews balance, regardless of the creator's intentions.

Unquestionably, I agree. I merely objected to your choice of verb, as eschewing specifically is a deliberate choice.

I was comparing a +4 against a +0, and I noted that class features (like expertise) do change things. The general point is that having all good stats does imbalance the game and makes it hard for some characters to shine.

I disagree in a general sense, although in this specific case you are correct, but that's because of the innate problems with bounded skills such that you require expertise to actually have any real competence at skills.

Yes! For dungeon run beer-and-pizza games, sure! I've rolled stats in order before.

I see I was again unclear. The stats in order I'm aware of, my question was the rolling before concept. Even if you roll stats in order, I, at least, have always had something I've specifically wanted to play before building characters.

I would actually pick a Lore bard for the 'better at everything' example. With all 18s and Jack of All Trades, he's going to be literally better at every skill, has better healing magic than anyone, and will still deal more damage in melee than your character thanks to the blade cantrips, and has more than enough spare magical secrets to short up any differences. The only area where he loses out in is utility magic, and maybe some specific spells. Even if there are niche areas where an all-ten character can beat him, those are going to be very narrow niches indeed, and we've all heard the story of BMX bandit and Angel Summoner.

I firmly disagree here. A bard with Jack of All Trades is never going to be off the RNG outside of their expertise skills, and that's absolutely what's required to outperform a wizard at most skills. That said, a lore bard is probably the second most powerful character class for other reasons.

The ultimate problem, once again, boils down to a flaw in bounded accuracy, which as a concept shouldn't have been applied to skills. A wizard can simply throw more dice at most skills than a bard can. Furthermore, a familiar gives a wizard +3.125 on every skill check they so desire, so even without breaking the game wide open, they have a bonus directly comparable to level 17 Jack of All Trades from the get-go.

18 has been shown by some numbers folks to be the highest amount that the game ever assumes you'll reach, based off of monster AC and saves. A 20 is nice, but the math for going from 18-20 is less favorable than the math for going from 16-18.

I've not actually seen an such an analysis. Could you provide a link?

[silvertree]

Just dropping in to mention a system our group has started using.

1. We do the 4d6 drop the lowest.
2. Then we calculate what the point buy totals would be for each of those scores.
3. Then we get the average of the point buys.
4. Anyone who rolled below the average can instead opt to take the average point buy total and spend the points as they wish.

It's kind of a win-win. Everyone gets a chance to roll 18s. Anyone who was unlucky in their rolls benefits from the lucky folks' high rolls. And the ability to customize where you invest your points makes the point-buyers competitive with the high rollers.

The only tricky part is the math, converting the rolls into point buy totals, since 'officially' 15 is the highest stat you can buy, while 18 is the highest you can roll. Fortunately, we found a site that can make that a little easier: http://chicken-dinner.com/5e/5e-point-buy.html

Clicking on custom rules lets you play with score costs and increase the point pool. This allows you to get accurate scores, and allows players to buy higher stats than they'd normally be able to with the standard point buy.

[MaxWilson]

Do people actually do this? I've never seen that, but admittedly I don't have a terribly large sample size.

Do what? I roll for stats first. I'm not sure what my players do since I don't know what's in their heads, and can't tell if they have a concept in mind before they roll. I hear people on Internet forums like this one who say they create their concept first and then roll.

So I know that rolling for stats first happens, and I am told that creating the concept first also happens, but I have no direct knowledge of it. Does that answer your question?

It's actually pretty easy. At level 5~, a wizard is a better combatant than literally any other class, and as things progress they remain better than everyone else with only clerics and bards who elect to poorly imitate them coming anywhere near close, and their general competence at everything as the game progresses allows them to be better than everyone else at more things. Of course, wizards can be mostly stat independent, especially at higher levels, but the only solution to a wizard with 18s is another wizard(Or bard or cleric poorly imitating a wizard, but the wizard is still notably superior), and if you've got that magic 18, you actually get feats so you can have good saves and still have a huge edge.

I think you're overestimating the effect of the "magic 18" quite a bit.

Q: what do you call a Necromancer with a 3 Int?
A: Your Evil Dreadship Sir.

[It's a riff on a joke about "What do you call the person who graduates last in their med school class?" "Doctor."]

There's a character I rolled up once for a 3d6-in-order thought experiment whom I'd love to play sometime: a "rage-filled, manic-depressive Necromancer with massive self-esteem issues and a grudge against the world" and only 7 Int. (Rolls: Str 6, Dex 7, Con 8, Int 7, Wis 4, Cha 9.) My plan is to name him Giuseppe Zengara and have him wear plate armor to cancel out his low Dex (despite being nonproficient, which means no spellcasting while in armor) and spend his turns in combat Dodging with his action while shrieking, "Kill them! Kill them all!" with his bonus action at his skeletons and zombies.

And the best part is that not only is he combat-effective from relatively low levels (6+), but by 19th level he could have Light/Medium/Heavy Armor proficiency, Heavy Armor Master, Lucky, and Tough. AC 25 (Spell Mastery: Shield), 102 HP, and a whole army of undead. Plus the regular wizard shticks of Shapechange, Meteor Swarm, Wall of Force, etc., all of which are basically effective despite his modest spell DC of 12. He could be a decent BBEG as an NPC despite having stats worse than anything a normal person will ever roll in their entire lifetime on 5E's default rolling method (4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste).

Yes, but in that case you're using the best class in the game in the second most optimal role for it. Not that I'm entirely disagreeing, being in a different role means you can mitigate this, but the lower save DCs mean that, unless you're a diviner, casting SoLs in combat, other than the effectively saveless contagion, is pretty bad, and you're essentially forced into either being a complete gamebreaker or limiting yourself to pure buffs if you want to contribute meaningfully in combat.

If you're bad at Save-or-Lose spells, don't rely on them. So what? You can still cast Otto's Irresistable Dance (no save initially), Wall of Force, Fireball (against many things it doesn't even matter if they save), Greater Invisibility/Haste, Shield, Absorb Elements, Conjure (Minor) Elemental(s), Mage Armor (on self or others, especially good on Moon Druids), Polymorph, Cloudkill + Forceage, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, etc., etc. You can still take feats like Healer for fun and contribute that way. You can still Help other PCs, you can still toss nets in combat (or have your summoned skeletons toss nets) to gain tempo in the action economy. You're still a PC.

And if you don't want to be a wizard, there are other options such as Moon Druid and Rogue.

(Just don't be a Bard or Sorcerer with Cha 10. That's no fun. But there's plenty of other options. I've even seen a Str 6 Barbarian on paper that looked pretty fun to play: crippled old warrior who is still surprisingly good at tanking considering his stats.)

[strangebloke]

I've not actually seen an such an analysis. Could you provide a link?

I've not seen a link either, truthfully, I took it on faith, perhaps I should not have?

The suggested ACs for monsters are outlined below. Some monsters have lower AC but more than the suggested number of hitpoints. I've also added a column for the attack bonus you'd expect at that level.

CR 0-3: 13 AC +5(+2 prof, +3 stat)
CR 4: 14 AC +6(+2 prof, +4 stat)
CR 5-7: 15 AC +7(+3 prof, +4 stat)
CR 8-9: 16 AC +8(+3-4 prof, +5 stat)
CR 10-12: 17 AC +9(+4 prof, +5 stat)
CR 13-16: 18 AC +10(+5 prof, +5 stat)
CR 17+: 19 AC +11(+6 prof, +5 stat)

So yeah, looks like that assertion was bogus. If you up your main stat at every ASI, you can keep hitting on an 8, otherwise you fall behind.

That said, there are lots of things that can compensate for this, like magic weapons, improved crit chances, BI, advantage, and spells like bless.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't think everyone is engaged in cutthroat competition. I just think everyone wants to be cool, and having great stats lets you be cool more often and do things that someone with crappy stats can't, and if there's a disctinct possibility that somebody got to be awesome by cheating, then why shouldn't I be awesome by cheating? And if everyone is fudging HP rolls, stat rolls, d20 rolls... Why are you playing 5e? I think it hurts enjoyment of the game if players are rewarded for being dishonest. If you want everyone to have good stats, give them high stats. If you want variance, just have them roll in front of you. Even if you see the downsides as small, there's simply no reason to let people cheat.

You're making a ton of assumptions here.

And my earlier statement was merely to say that I'd be very frustrated DMing or playing at a table where no-one cares how effective their character is. It was an assertion about me, not about players in general.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Selene Sparks]

Do what? I roll for stats first. I'm not sure what my players do since I don't know what's in their heads, and can't tell if they have a concept in mind before they roll. I hear people on Internet forums like this one who say they create their concept first and then roll.

So I know that rolling for stats first happens, and I am told that creating the concept first also happens, but I have no direct knowledge of it. Does that answer your question?

It does.

I think you're overestimating the effect of the "magic 18" quite a bit.

While you can function as a wizard without using any save or attack roll spells, most of the ways to do so well are extremely powerful to the point of gamebreaking. So, while it's true casting stat 18 isn't, in fact, necessary for Ultimate Cosmic Power^tm, if you are actually avoiding Ultimate Cosmic Power^tm for party balance or group enjoyment reasons, a casting stat of 20 is vital to remain useful, thanks in no small part to concentration.

Q: what do you call a Necromancer with a 3 Int?
A: Your Evil Dreadship Sir.

[It's a riff on a joke about "What do you call the person who graduates last in their med school class?" "Doctor."]

There's a character I rolled up once for a 3d6-in-order thought experiment whom I'd love to play sometime: a "rage-filled, manic-depressive Necromancer with massive self-esteem issues and a grudge against the world" and only 7 Int. (Rolls: Str 6, Dex 7, Con 8, Int 7, Wis 4, Cha 9.) My plan is to name him Giuseppe Zengara and have him wear plate armor to cancel out his low Dex (despite being nonproficient, which means no spellcasting while in armor) and spend his turns in combat Dodging with his action while shrieking, "Kill them! Kill them all!" with his bonus action at his skeletons and zombies.

And the best part is that not only is he combat-effective from relatively low levels (6+), but by 19th level he could have Light/Medium/Heavy Armor proficiency, Heavy Armor Master, Lucky, and Tough. AC 25 (Spell Mastery: Shield), 102 HP, and a whole army of undead. Plus the regular wizard shticks of Shapechange, Meteor Swarm, Wall of Force, etc., all of which are basically effective despite his modest spell DC of 12. He could be a decent BBEG as an NPC despite having stats worse than anything a normal person will ever roll in their entire lifetime on 5E's default rolling method (4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste).

This is a completely viable build, extremely powerful even, but that's because necromancers are simply better than everyone else by a mile. Actually, diviners or illusionists who use lots of necromancy are better than everyone else, but other wizards are runners up.

Also, the character sounds very fun to play, but that's neither here nor their in a mechanics discussion.

If you're bad at Save-or-Lose spells, don't rely on them. So what? You can still cast Otto's Irresistable Dance (no save initially), Wall of Force, Fireball (against many things it doesn't even matter if they save), Greater Invisibility/Haste, Shield, Absorb Elements, Conjure (Minor) Elemental(s), Mage Armor (on self or others, especially good on Moon Druids), Polymorph, Cloudkill + Forceage, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, etc., etc. You can still take feats like Healer for fun and contribute that way. You can still Help other PCs, you can still toss nets in combat (or have your summoned skeletons toss nets) to gain tempo in the action economy. You're still a PC.

You raise a good point here, with the problem that most of the spells you're bringing up are rather high level(And also not the most efficient spells, but if you're holding back, they work). The problem is if you're an Int 12 wizard, for example, from levels 1-4, you're pretty much totally incompetent, and from levels 5-10, until the no-save-you-lose spells come online, you're pretty much left with only the most overpowered strategies if you want to be functional.

And if you don't want to be a wizard, there are other options such as Moon Druid and Rogue.

Moon druids have the opposite problem from our hypothetical polite but not terribly good wizard above, and that's that they scale poorly. Animal stats simply aren't up to snuff when if comes down to it, and a rogue's combat value is honestly rather lackluster save as a post-caster janitor, although they do have the advantage of actually being good at skills innately.

[smcmike]

If you are rolling, you should definitely roll before picking a race and class. Doing it the other way around would be maddening, and making a character to fit your rolls is almost the entire point of rolling. 18/18/10/10/10/10 gives you much different options than 16/16/15/14/13/13 or 17/13/12/9/8/6.

[MaxWilson]

Also, the character sounds very fun to play, but that's neither here nor their in a mechanics discussion.

Well, it is kind of relevant to a mechanics discussion because point buy can NEVER generate a character like Giuseppe Zengara. It speaks to the point about whether having good stats is a necessary component of fun (it's not), and whether introducing random variation can inspire character choices that wouldn't occur otherwise. I can honestly tell you I never would have thought of this guy without the 3d6-in-order thread.

You raise a good point here, with the problem that most of the spells you're bringing up are rather high level(And also not the most efficient spells, but if you're holding back, they work). The problem is if you're an Int 12 wizard, for example, from levels 1-4, you're pretty much totally incompetent, and from levels 5-10, until the no-save-you-lose spells come online, you're pretty much left with only the most overpowered strategies if you want to be functional.

I disagree about "totally incompetent."

If you're a level 1-4 Int 12 wizard plinking away with your light crossbow and/or your Fire Bolt/Chill Touch, the difference between Int 12 and Int 16 will barely be mechanically noticeable. It will probably show up more in a roleplaying sense, since Int 12 is IMO basically "brightest guy in your high school geometry class" and Int 16 is "perfect SAT" territory, so with Int 12 you'll probably go out of your way to be more of an average Joe. You're just as effective as any other wizard at Sleep, Shield, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, and many other low-level staples. You're not that much worse at Grease or Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter. DC 11 vs. DC 13--either way, the real trick is to target an enemy's weak saves. One time in ten, you'll have an enemy succeed on a save that it would have failed if you'd had Int 16, but that hardly makes you a total incompetent. You can still theoretically kill the Tarrasque with a good horse, Longstrider, and Acid Splash, so in that sense you're just as much a wizard as the guy with natural Int 18.

Moon druids have the opposite problem from our hypothetical polite but not terribly good wizard above, and that's that they scale poorly. Animal stats simply aren't up to snuff when if comes down to it, and a rogue's combat value is honestly rather lackluster save as a post-caster janitor, although they do have the advantage of actually being good at skills innately.

I'm afraid I can't agree with this take on Moon Druids at all. Wildshaping as a melee strategy may not scale terribly well, but Moon Druids scale very well, competitively with wizards, and wildshaping always has a good action economy and provides good mobility.

I suspect our differing opinions here are reflective of the CAW/CAS split. Combat As War actively seeks out "broken" combinations in any given situation, and stats tends not to matter in that situation. (If you trick the Fire Giant into chasing you into the Purple Worm's lair and then Dimension Door out of there, who cares if your spell save DC was 14 or 17?) Combat As Sport tends to seek contests that are uniformed skewed in favor of the PCs, but not by too much because that renders die rolls irrelevant. In a CAS campaign rolling poorly would be worse than in a CAW campaign because CAS is carefully calibrated around certain assumptions that you presumably buy into, or you'd be playing CAW instead.

[Tanarii]

How about let 6 people in the party roll once for an ability score each? If you've got less than 6, someone(s) roll twice. Then those 6 ability scores are used by everyone. (In any order, to be clear.)

That would address your issues of disparity between different PCs, while retaining what balance and variation there is in 4d6b3.

The way I see it, once you start rigging rolling to guarantee strong stats, the rolling is a pointless ceremony. Just tell people they can set whichever stats they consider appropriate for their characters at the relevant level.

If there is to be any point to rolling, it should be possible to get a wide spread, a tight spread, a low spread or a high spread. And then whatever you get, no matter how good or bad, you play that in your three-year campaign, to honour the risk/reward element you chose over point buy.

That's pretty much how I feel about it too. If you don't want to take a chance on rolling, take standard array. But given it results in slightly higher ability scores than standard array on average, it's not really much of a 'chance'.

[jas61292]

Point Buy is fine. I hate 5E's implementation of it due to its absolute forbiddance of having an 18 at 1st level, which is not an abomination apocalypse of all that is gamedom. 3E/4E/Pathfinder does it fine.

I also think point but is fine, but I feel exactly the opposite otherwise. Normally I dislike point buy because I feel characters end up too similar, but I actually like 5e point buy precisely because of its lower upper limit. In other editions I wouldn't care, but with 5e's lower stat cap, starting at 18 just doesn't give room to grow. Especially when that 18 will most likely end up a 20 after racial adjustment. Conceptually, I hate characters starting off as good as they can get, but also mechanically, with most classes valuing one stat far above the rest, it completely destroys the ASI-feat balance, which is already a bit wonky as is. Some people like that, but I don't.

Really, I prefer rolling, in theory, but in practice, no rolling method has given me results I like, on average, as much as 5e point buy.

[strangebloke]

That's pretty much how I feel about it too. If you don't want to take a chance on rolling, take standard array. But given it results in slightly higher ability scores than standard array on average, it's not really much of a 'chance'.

I like rolling because it leads to more varied characters. The risk is a downside.

[Tanarii]

I like rolling because it leads to more varied characters. The risk is a downside.

In that case, I'd do something like start with standard array, and roll a d6 for each ability score: 1-2: -1, 3-4: 0, 5-6: +1.
edit: You could also do 1d6-3 (or -2 to +3), for each ability score.

[Chugger]

I'm amazed at how much variation we have at AL, which uses strict point buy.

I often hear "you have how many hit points?" "Yeah, my Con is only a ten - I'm not very healthy - and don't talk me into changing it, it's how I am."

People also play races not optimized for their classes.

What is "ill" is when people come in here asking for advice for their Str 20 Cha 17 Con 19 Dex 14 Int 16 Wis 17 paladin - swearing it was an honest roll (and I suppose it could have been, though far more likely an "honest re-roll" of the 187th time...) - and some of say to them "what do you need advice for? You rolled a 'god'. Why don't you advise me? What are the winning Lotto numbers next week?"

[Emay Ecks]

I personally hate rolling for stats, as a player or as a DM. I don't mind other players being stronger than mine, but I hate it when they can regularly outperform mine at a task which I should be stronger in. I also hate balancing fights around one character with high saves and fantastic chances to hit against a party whos rolls are 10% lower because of a +2 difference.

In a recent game as a player where we rolled stats, our wizard had higher charisma than the warlock who wanted to use Mask of Many faces and be the party face, and the wizard took persuasion and deception proficiency (I personally think the wizard was just being rude and should let the warlock shine where they wanted to). The warlock became an eldritch blast spammer and was outshown by the wizard in both combat and in social interactions.

In a more intrigue/investigation driven game (starting at lvl 7) where I DM, I told the party I was fine with them rolling (4d6 drop lowest) or point buy, whatever they preferred. They all rolled stats. 3 of my four players had a total bonus between all their stats between +1 and +3 (worse than standard point buy), and one player had rolls that gave them a total of +12 across all stats. It didn't help that the player with the high rolls picked fighter 1/sword bard 6 and is now a full spellcaster in plate with multi-attack and expertise. I wasn't ok with one player being better at other people's areas of expertise than they were, so I told the other three players to use a 34 point buy so the difference wouldn't be quite as disgusting.

[coyote_sly]

Something I've seen, which I plan to do when I run my own game, is to havd a sampled array - everyone, including the GM, rolls 4d6 drop lowest stat arrays. The DM gets to toss one and replace with the standard array, if they choose. Then everyone must choose one of the remaining stat arrays.

You could have everyone using the same stats (although the idea is if any of the stat blocks are THAT amazing, the DM probably replaces it with the standard array), but more than likely you still get some randomness, everyone gets something they're reasonably happy with, there's a minimum baseline option, and if there's a massively OP array on the table, it affects everyone equally.

[Beelzebubba]

And yes, Roll20 or being present is required if you're rolling.

The Dicebot app in Slack is awesome too, since it's being rolled with a witness in a chat.

It doesn't drop the lowest, but it shows each die score in '/roll 4d6' so that's minor.