Rolling Vs. Point Buy: Stats & Discussion

[strangebloke]

So I might be starting a new campaign soon, and I decided to take a closer look at rolling vs. point buy. I kind of tend to favor rolling, just because you end up with goofier characters, but I *don't* like it when some players roll really well and others roll super poorly, so I wanted to figure out what the likelihood of that happening was.

So this is a little math project I did with the assistance of anydice.com (http://anydice.com/program/f29c). The table below shows the probable results of rolling 6 stats using 4d6 drop lowest. The first column are results that are 1 std. deviation below the mean, the middle column are the average result, and the last column are the results 1 standard deviation above the mean. "1 standard deviation above the mean" more or less means that ~85% of results are going to be worse. In reality, things are more complicated than that, but we'll ignore that for now.

I also calculated the 'point buy' cost of the low end results and the high end results. (For stats above 15, 15-16 costs 3, 16-17 costs 3, and 17-18 costs 4.) I figured this would give me the extreme worst case and best case for rolls.




low end
mean
high end


highest
14.23
15.66
17.09


2nd highest
12.73
14.17
15.61


3rd highest
11.50
12.96
14.42


3rd lowest
10.23
11.76
13.29


2nd lowest
8.75
10.41
12.07


lowest
6.55
8.50
10.45


Point Buy Value
18
31
45


Modifier Total
+1
+6
+10



Other distributions I looked at:
"Flat": 14/13/13/12/12/10 = 27(+6)
"Minmaxed": 17/16/13/12/9/7 = 36(+5)

Point Buy is 27 and the Modifier Total runs between +3(8/8/8/15/15/15) and +7(14/12/12/12/12/12)

So in summary, you tend to get higher end results by rolling (>50% chance of getting better than a 15) and you get 'better' stats overall. Even someone who rolls very well probably won't disrupt the game that much, since the more important stats are the higher ones, and those tend to have a much narrower deviation. (rolling an 18 for your highest stat is much better than rolling a 12 for your lowest.) A character who rolls poorly is going to have a very ineffective character overall, and will probably be more disruptive to a game than someone who rolls high particularly if they want to play a certain character type.

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

[Corsair14]

4d6 drop the lowest with nothing less than an 8 is my preferred method. Also assign as needed. Cant stand point buys. That said stats have bounced around a bit than they used to and the old dump stat of charisma isn't the dump stat any more that it used to be.

[tieren]

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.

[smcmike]

I like rolling. I would not put a floor of 8 on bad stats - sometimes a bad stat is what makes a character. I would definitely provide a mechanism to toss overall crap rolls, though. I’d also make sure to have the whole party witness the rolls. There’s nothing quite as annoying as feeling a little suspicious about everyone else’s godly rolls.

[Coffee_Dragon]

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.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

As a DM I offer both point buy and rolling. All my players are friends of mine, so I don't care what they pick, even if they roll and blatantly cheat to have good stats. It's a collaborative game, not an adversarial one, and if they've got higher-than-average stats, so be it; I'll just up the challenge a bit in ways that can't be overcome with +1 to hit.

[strangebloke]

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 is fine, but makes for very high stats overall, and also reduces variance within the party.

I like rolling. I would not put a floor of 8 on bad stats - sometimes a bad stat is what makes a character. I would definitely provide a mechanism to toss overall crap rolls, though. I’d also make sure to have the whole party witness the rolls. There’s nothing quite as annoying as feeling a little suspicious about everyone else’s godly rolls.
Right! Grog Strongjaw's 6 INT made for hilarious shenanigans.

And yes, Roll20 or being present is required if you're rolling. Otherwise it just strains the trust the group has needlessly.

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.
I disagree... One point of rolling is to have an element of risk in character creation. Another reason is just to introduce variance. "Woah, my guy has 3 16s and 2 6's, what's up with that?"

One method I've considered is a 'push your luck' version where you roll 8-9 sets of 4d6 drop lowest, but you have to choose to keep or throw away rolls as you get them. You can throw away a 12 to try and get a second 15+ number, but there's always the chance you get a 6.

[nickl_2000]

I like rolling. I would not put a floor of 8 on bad stats - sometimes a bad stat is what makes a character. I would definitely provide a mechanism to toss overall crap rolls, though. I’d also make sure to have the whole party witness the rolls. There’s nothing quite as annoying as feeling a little suspicious about everyone else’s godly rolls.

I agree with this completely. My moon Druid has a 6 in charisma, which has been one of the parts I like most about the character outside of combat.

[strangebloke]

As a DM I offer both point buy and rolling. All my players are friends of mine, so I don't care what they pick, even if they roll and blatantly cheat to have good stats. It's a collaborative game, not an adversarial one, and if they've got higher-than-average stats, so be it; I'll just up the challenge a bit in ways that can't be overcome with +1 to hit.

I with you on not caring about players having high stats, but cheating is strictly no bueno.

Gary has a 28 point buy character that he rolled for.

Jordan has a 46 point buy character that he 'rolled' for.

Gary laughs it off, but inwardly, he wonders if Jordan cheated. People have an inherent desire to be the best person within a group and whenever Jordan's character upstages Gary's, Gary will get an itch in the back of his mind wondering... "Did he cheat?" Eventually those thoughts change to "He did cheat." I've seen this kind of stuff wour relationships. There's no reason to put up with it.

[The Jack]

Rolling can create issues. You can get up the "averages" and probability all you want, but as anyone who's ever played an Xcom game can testify; missing a 95% chance probably happens more than 5% of the time, or at least it'll be a bigger issue. I don't think it's wise to leave something that'll effect you and the game's sense of balance through what could be a very long game to a few dice-rolls over the course of five minutes.

But pointbuy has it's flaws. I dislike that pointbuy in 5e has a minimum of 8, not from a powergamer's perspective, but in that it just makes less colourful characters. I'd rather see it at 5 or 6, though such low scores should be worth half a point rather than an increased amount.

A big issue is that Int is dumped by everyone and everything with the sole exception of wizards (No, your eldritch knight'll do just fine as a dumbass) and strength's an easy one to miss if your GM's a heretic who's misinterpreted (likes) acrobatics and denies and the god-skill of Athletics. So point allocation's gonna be plagued by these dumps, at least charisma has some RP benefits. There's no RP difference between 10'n 8 intelligence, but then I consider anything less than a 26 to be roll-playing down anyway so...

[Draz74]

I once figured out the most typical distribution of stats for 4d6 drop lowest using medians rather than means. It aligns pretty well with rounding your column of "average" results: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Notably, that's significantly better than you can get with standard point-buy in 5e (in which you can't even buy a 16 no matter how hard you try). This is one reason that I significantly prefer rolling for stats in 5e.

[MaxWilson]

A character who rolls poorly is going to have a very ineffective character overall

A player who rolls poorly and knows what they're doing is going to have a SAD or non-AD class like a Moon Druid, Shepherd Druid, Necromancer, or Rogue. They'll be very effective at what they do and will bring a lot to the table.

I concede that a lot of players don't know how to play the game well--and those players will have very ineffective characters regardless of what stats they roll, until they learn how to play better.


I like rolling. I would not put a floor of 8 on bad stats - sometimes a bad stat is what makes a character. I would definitely provide a mechanism to toss overall crap rolls, though. I’d also make sure to have the whole party witness the rolls. There’s nothing quite as annoying as feeling a little suspicious about everyone else’s godly rolls.

Yes, this is a good move. A player who rolls incredible stats right there in front of everybody doesn't have to be embarrassed the way he might be if he rolled them in private. Besides, it's always fun to watch a new-ish player's excitement when they roll a natural 18.


Rolling can create issues. You can get up the "averages" and probability all you want, but as anyone who's ever played an Xcom game can testify; missing a 95% chance probably happens more than 5% of the time, or at least it'll be a bigger issue. I don't think it's wise to leave something that'll effect you and the game's sense of balance through what could be a very long game to a few dice-rolls over the course of five minutes.

Ah, XCOM... XCOM changed the way I view rolled stats. Before I played XCOM, I was a teenage munchkin who couldn't stand to roll low. XCOM made me realize that even the guy with crummy stats can still be a valuable team member if you give him the right equipment (a few Heavy Explosives and a laser pistol) and use him in the right way (e.g. as a spotter for a sniper). He may die eventually, but then again, everyone dies in XCOM.

I'm actually working on an XCOM-inspired 5E CRPG in my spare time, because XCOM is exactly the experience I want out of 5E. (I've realized that I don't like 5E very much for TTRPG play due to lack of depth and excessive combat focus, and have stopped running it, but it's still a good game for tactical puzzles and fighting monsters and building up equipment in order to some day challenge the Final Boss. In short, it's a good game for the XCOM experience.)

[strangebloke]

Rolling can create issues. You can get up the "averages" and probability all you want, but as anyone who's ever played an Xcom game can testify; missing a 95% chance probably happens more than 5% of the time, or at least it'll be a bigger issue. I don't think it's wise to leave something that'll effect you and the game's sense of balance through what could be a very long game to a few dice-rolls over the course of five minutes.

I play Xcom, and most Xcom players have no understanding of probability.

A 5% chance is actually pretty huge for something that you expect as 'definite.' Every combat is going to have 30-40 attack rolls, the probability of *not* missing a 95% chance attack once in a while is pretty low.

In this case, the actual chance of rolling universally 'poor' or worse for all stats is actually much lower than a 5% chance, and the total number of people rolling is usually like 6.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I with you on not caring about players having high stats, but cheating is strictly no bueno.

Gary has a 28 point buy character that he rolled for.

Jordan has a 46 point buy character that he 'rolled' for.

Gary laughs it off, but inwardly, he wonders if Jordan cheated. People have an inherent desire to be the best person within a group and whenever Jordan's character upstages Gary's, Gary will get an itch in the back of his mind wondering... "Did he cheat?" Eventually those thoughts change to "He did cheat." I've seen this kind of stuff wour relationships. There's no reason to put up with it.

The difference is that everyone I play with is part of a RL friend group. We'd known each other for years before we started gaming, and more often than not do non-gaming stuff when we've got time to hang out. The relationships aren't going to sour, because the characters are ultimately disposable constructs that facilitate getting together, drinking some beers and making a **** joke or three. It's not competitive at all.

That experience isn't portable to a table that takes the game incredibly seriously, probably, and I certainly don't think it's portable to a table of strangers in the back of a gaming store.

[MaxWilson]

I play Xcom, and most Xcom players have no understanding of probability.

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.

[Pelle]

IME, at character creation players all want to roll for their stats, because they want the possibility to get something great. However, after rolling, they tend to be unhappy if they roll poorer than others... As a GM, I therefore prefer point buy. What I did last time to accomodate my players, I mandated rerolls if their rolled stats were too poor or too good (as if generarated with point buy). Luckily none had to reroll too good stats...

It's fun to play around with alternative rolled stats systems, though. I usually just test them by running Monte Carlo simulations in excel to get a feel of their probability curves.

I guess you should, before generating stats, ask the players if they want to roll stats because they just want the randomness which they don't get with point buy, or if they want to gamble to possibly win big stats. If the latter, make sure they are also OK with playing a relatively sucky character. If the former, just establish some stat sets using point buy and roll randomly between those, or have them reroll until their point buy value is acceptable.

[strangebloke]

A player who rolls poorly and knows what they're doing is going to have a SAD or non-AD class like a Moon Druid, Shepherd Druid, Necromancer, or Rogue. They'll be very effective at what they do and will bring a lot to the table.

Ah, XCOM... XCOM changed the way I view rolled stats. Before I played XCOM, I was a teenage munchkin who couldn't stand to roll low. XCOM made me realize that even the guy with crummy stats can still be a valuable team member if you give him the right equipment (a few Heavy Explosives and a laser pistol) and use him in the right way (e.g. as a spotter for a sniper). He may die eventually, but then again, everyone dies in XCOM.
First of all, most people have very definite concepts they wanna play. Lot's of people (not me) want to play a specific class when the come to the table, and nuking 'paladin' as an option because you only have 2 positive stats is really rough.

The issue being that players are attached to their DND characters. People buy minis, commission art, write backstories... and they only get one PC at a time. In XCOM, you have 4-6 squaddies and if they die, that may weaken the team, but you can use them in the meantime. In 5e, a PC with crappy stats is actually incentivized to get himself killed, which encourages him to be less invested in the character, which... is BS.

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.
TBH I've only played New XCOM, which is a different game entirely, but there people still complain about the hit/miss chances.


The difference is that everyone I play with is part of a RL friend group. We'd known each other for years before we started gaming, and more often than not do non-gaming stuff when we've got time to hang out. The relationships aren't going to sour, because the characters are ultimately disposable constructs that facilitate getting together, drinking some beers and making a **** joke or three. It's not competitive at all.

That experience isn't portable to a table that takes the game incredibly seriously, probably, and I certainly don't think it's portable to a table of strangers in the back of a gaming store.

Haaa... I think your definition of 'incredibly seriously' is my definition of 'engaged.' I'm more than willing to drop a beer back and laugh whilst playing, but what you're talking about is a whole nother level. People are competitive inherently, even if its fricking beer pong.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Haaa... I think your definition of 'incredibly seriously' is my definition of 'engaged.' I'm more than willing to drop a beer back and laugh whilst playing, but what you're talking about is a whole nother level. People are competitive inherently, even if its fricking beer pong.

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.

[strangebloke]

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.

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

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.

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

[KorvinStarmast]

IME, at character creation players all want to roll for their stats, because they want the possibility to get something great. However, after rolling, they tend to be unhappy if they roll poorer than others... As a GM, I therefore prefer point buy. What I did last time to accomodate my players, I mandated rerolls if their rolled stats were too poor or too good (as if generarated with point buy).
You can always let them re roll.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

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

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.

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

Conceded with the following caveats: all-10s isn't considered playable, so anyone doing that would go into it knowing they're underpowered, which seemingly undercuts your belief that everyone is engaged in cutthroat intrapartry competition; and providing avenues to use class features is the way you create balance between imbalanced characters.

I do think your suggestion two posts ago that tables that don't match your expectation aren't engaged with the game is a bit narrowminded.

[Sigreid]

In one game I specifically wanted hero of legend characters and had everyone roll 5d6 b3 7 times best 6.

This was great as I specifically wanted all the characters to be well and noticeably above the average man or woman and created the campaign around that assumption.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I almost always roll for my PCs and it ticks Brazenburn of sometimes. I tend to get really lucky when rolling and get things like... 16 15 14 17 10 13... 18 15 15 13 17 12. Brazenburn at one point had me take of the highest instead of the lowest.

[MaxWilson]

First of all, most people have very definite concepts they wanna play. Lot's of people (not me) want to play a specific class when the come to the table, and nuking 'paladin' as an option because you only have 2 positive stats is really rough.

The issue being that players are attached to their DND characters. People buy minis, commission art, write backstories... and they only get one PC at a time. In XCOM, you have 4-6 squaddies and if they die, that may weaken the team, but you can use them in the meantime. In 5e, a PC with crappy stats is actually incentivized to get himself killed, which encourages him to be less invested in the character, which... is BS.

Players don't have to have only one PC at a time unless the DMs forces them to. You can run character trees, or have multiple campaigns running concurrently (e.g. a high-level, a mid-level, and a low-level).

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.


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

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.

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

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.

If you exploit your all 18s to make a totally MAD character like a GWM Warbearian Nocan the Merciless, I can still be your buddy Fahrfhird the Mendicant Magician. In roleplaying scenarios, I can still run my chicken farm and help solve riddles and appease the Sphinx when we get riddles wrong; I still have skill and tool proficiencies you don't that may help me recognize obscure traps and clues you wouldn't pick up on yourself; when it comes time to fight I can still take a bunch of enemies out of the fight with Hypnotic Pattern or Fear--perhaps I only make 7 out of 12 orcs run away whereas an Int 18 magician would make 9 out of 12 orcs run away, but Nocan is more than equipped to clean up all the orcs I didn't scare off. Or I can turn myself into a T-Rex, or summon up an Earth Elemental, or cast Greater Invisibility or Haste on Nocan, or conjure up a Phantom Steed and plink away with my Fire Bolt if Nocan is unconscious at 0 HP due to bad luck against the orcs. And if Nocan is unconscious and at 0 HP, he will be especially glad to have me saving his bacon by pulling his body out of combat and stuffing him in a Rope Trick, whereas if I weren't around he'd simply be eaten by the orcs when they got back to camp. (Or maybe I just revive him with the Healer feat, which Nocan doesn't have because he was busy investing in GWM and Elven Accuracy or whatnot.)

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

[Sigreid]

I'll also say that one of the most fun characters I've ever had was a palladium character whose highest stat was a 12. He had a 10, and the rest were below 10. He barely qualified for a class at all. He was challenging and a bunch of fun as I had to try a lot harder to be successful.

[Pelle]

You can always let them re roll.

Nah, then what you are doing is effectively raising the average power level, or letting them decide their own stats (re-rolling until they get all 18s). That might be fine for the group, though.

My point was mostly that it is the relative difference that matters. It doesn't help to reroll bad stats to get ok stats (objectively), if someone else rolled great stats and everyone else has bad stats in comparison.

So to keep everyone happy you (the group) need to set a standard of what is an acceptable power range. Point buy is easy, but you can devise a randomized method as suggested. Of course, this is not necessary if the players are ok with the power discrepancy.

[strangebloke]

Conceded with the following caveats: all-10s isn't considered playable, so anyone doing that would go into it knowing they're underpowered, which seemingly undercuts your belief that everyone is engaged in cutthroat intrapartry competition; and providing avenues to use class features is the way you create balance between imbalanced characters.

I do think your suggestion two posts ago that tables that don't match your expectation aren't engaged with the game is a bit narrowminded.
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.

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.

In one game I specifically wanted hero of legend characters and had everyone roll 5d6 b3 7 times best 6.

This was great as I specifically wanted all the characters to be well and noticeably above the average man or woman and created the campaign around that assumption.
Oh yeah, of course you can do this, and it can lead to a nice situation where PCs get good stats in non-mechanical things, like an archer who's also buff or a paladin who's also pretty smart. I'm just in favor of rolling in general, and I wanted to make an argument that it's in your best interest as a player, generally.

I almost always roll for my PCs and it ticks Brazenburn of sometimes. I tend to get really lucky when rolling and get things like... 16 15 14 17 10 13... 18 15 15 13 17 12. Brazenburn at one point had me take of the highest instead of the lowest.
This seems like so much work!? Why would you do this?

[Amdy_vill]

i like rolling but i always give each player one 18. i take there highest stat if it is not any 18 and bump it up to 18. i also tend to mess with there stats if there too far apart. it one player has 3 18 and the other nothing higher than 14 i will make the party closer to balanced but if a player tells me that don't want that help i don't do it. in general what every you do try and make a fairly balance party and keep the power of each player in check with the world.

[LordEntrails]

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.

[GlenSmash!]

I like all the methods of stat generation in the PHB.

The only thing I dislike is re-rolling until you get massively high stats. Not that I think it's terrible to get massively high stats, I just find the idea of many re-rolls defeats the purpose of rolling.

I think my preferred method is roll, and if you don't like the roll use point buy or the standard array. It would bump up average stats a bit, but not terribly I think.

[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.


We do the 4d6 drop the lowest.
Then we calculate what the point buy totals would be for each of those scores.
Then we get the average of the point buys.
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.



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 [I]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 Powertm, if you are actually avoiding Ultimate Cosmic Powertm 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.



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 [I]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 (https://dice-b.appspot.com) 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.

[Selene Sparks]

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.I've actually built a similar character(A conjurer with severe obsessive compulsions and self-esteem issues to the point of getting bossed around by summons), and you don't need to be incompetent to build a similar character in personality(Which is the important part of the character).


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.But we again run into the problem of an 18(20) vs a 12. An 11 vs a 15 is important, especially because the RNG is so small even monsters on a bad save have a good chance against it anyway. Jacking up the DC, going for all those little +1s, is the only way to be good at your job. And power matters for RP, because if you mechanically can't match your character concept, it can be pretty detrimental to the gaming experience.

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'm sorry, but I believe you are incorrect here, and here's why: First off, wizards are just flatly better than everyone else. Nothing in the game matches the combat power of Animate Dead, plus Glyph of Warding/Symbol means wizards have essentially an unbeatable action economy with decent gold. Even discounting that, though, unless I'm missing something, Animate Objects plus a handful of shuriken is still pretty much better than almost anything a druid can do.

I'm genuinely confused as to how you thing wildshape helps your action economy, especially since it kills your spellcasting, which is your actual class feature. Ultimately, Druids simply have a worse spell list, and nothing they have as a class feature comes close to Portent or making Mirage Arcana real.

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.I firmly disagree. First off, I believe you are presenting a false dichotomy here, that seems to be an extension of the "Roleplayers vs Rollplayers" line of thought. But secondly, rolling poorly is less of a big deal in the "CAS" model, because, as you say, the GM is setting things up with you having an edge, but your example for "CAW" is more in line with your thoughts on "CAS." Essentially, you're running on GM mercy that there's an aggressive, high CR predator right by whatever you're fighting and the giant follows you instead of using its ranged attacks.

That would address your issues of disparity between different PCs, while retaining what balance and variation there is in 4d6b3.The problem here is that there isn't balance in 4d6k3. While it's got an acceptable average, the deviation is actually pretty huge. While being able to swap stats with others would be a degree of improvement, it's simply a patch over the larger problem that rolling results in unbalanced characters.

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'.Actually, it is a pretty big chance.

First, let me pose a hypothetical: Would you accept a point buy system of 20+2d4, of course without rerolls? It gives you the variation you want, but also gives people control over their stats, which actually aids both MAD and SAD classes. This gives you a range of abilities that, at minimum, was described in 3e, which admittedly had a somewhat different(read "better" PB system) as "challenging," an average of "standard," which maps to the default array, and a maximum of "tougher," so you can end up with both hardcore badasses and highly limited wimps in the same party.

One standard deviation below 4d6k3, which is equivalent to 25PB, is the average NPC array, which is equivalent to 15PB, while one standard deviation above is 33PB. That's a huge risk, and I'm pretty sure that's why most of the people here who are advocating rolling are talking about doing something other than 4d6k3 when they actually talk about how they do it.

So going back to the above hypothetical, if that point buy had too much variance, why would you want a system with significantly more variance?

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. I have to disagree here. While I think the 5e stat cap was a mistake, you're placing, in this case, too much value on attributes(Which, as a side note, I think is kind of funny coming from me considering my arguments on this thread), when real power comes from levels. This is doubly true because you have to choose between feats and stats. That is, you have to choose between being good at your job and having actually interesting abilities to distinguish you from the other Generic Fighter #72.

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.This, I think, bears repeating. People always actually want something rather specific. If you're a fighter, you want high strength or dex, as well as con. If you're a monk, you're going to need Dex, Wis, and Con to be not useless. If you multiclass, you have to meet arbitrary minimums that can have nothing to do with your actual abilities or anything you actually do. People always want something specific, and, funnily enough, introducing randomness does not help you get specific results.

I like rolling because it leads to more varied characters. The risk is a downside.Does it really, though? If you roll one god stat and the rest are 8s or 12s, you're pretty much forced into a caster roll so you can not be awful. If I roll 2 18s and the rest 12 or below, despite that being an amazing roll otherwise I can't build the multiclass paladin/warlock archer I've actually built on PB. Different things have different requirements, and the lack of control of rolling means you're often stuck with less varied characters, due to being unable to meet the requirements to either even build a character, or just have the character be decent. This is doubly true since you also have to choose between stat boosts and things that actually, mechanically distinguish your character from any other character of the same class and specialty other than simply being flat worse then them because they rolled an 18 and you didn't.

Furthermore, let me pose a hypothetical: Would you play in or run a game where each player rolled for their starting level? Say, the game starts at level 2d4 or so? It gives you a bunch of variance right there, even if characters have the same class and specialty, they would play totally differently. If not, why not? It really is the same thing as rolling stats. You're arbitrarily giving some players directly more or less power and restricting options with no concern for party balance.

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.This kind of thing really cannot be overstated, although this is a problem with 5e's skill system as much as it is with rolling.

[MaxWilson]

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.

IME this can only happen when the play group has a "never split the party" mentality where all PCs stay within 30' of each other at all times and don't have independent lives or take independent risks.

If the warlock kisses a frog which turns into a princess whom he then tries to woo... the wizard can't upstage him if the wizard isn't even there.

(And obviously, a wizard can't upstage a Warlock in combat at the Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Spear of Lethargy game either, because the wizard doesn't have invocations. Wizards can NEVER have personal DPR greater than a warlock's or especially sorlock's DPR; wizards excel instead at summons and control spells like Wall of Force. It's not the same niche at all.)

[MaxWilson]

I'm sorry, but I believe you are incorrect here, and here's why: First off, wizards are just flatly better than everyone else. Nothing in the game matches the combat power of Animate Dead, plus Glyph of Warding/Symbol means wizards have essentially an unbeatable action economy with decent gold.

And so do druids. Instead of turning gold into Symbols, druids get to turn gold into Planar Bound elementals, T-Rexes (via Conjure Fey), korreds, and hag covens, for example. Both druids and wizards are top-notch at the gold-into-power game.


Even discounting that, though, unless I'm missing something, Animate Objects plus a handful of shuriken is still pretty much better than almost anything a druid can do.

You're missing something. Let me introduce you to the joys of Conjure Animals. 16 Giant Poisonous Snakes (or Giant Owls, or Wolves, or pretty much anything really) for an hour with one action absolutely pwns 10 shuriken for sixty seconds, especially considering that (arguably) you have to spend some time distributing the shurikens over a wide area first before you cast the spell, because you can only have 4 Tiny creatures in a 5' cube.


I'm genuinely confused as to how you thing wildshape helps your action economy, especially since it kills your spellcasting, which is your actual class feature.

It's because you can do things like:

"Argh! An Umber Hulk just popped up in my face! On my turn, I look away from it so I don't have to make the save (this is always legal but of course makes it easier for the Umber Hulk to attack you), cast Conjure Animals III and tell all the animals to kill that Umber Hulk, wildshape into a Giant Owl, and fly away [without taking opportunity attacks because Giant Owls have Flyby]."

Any time you get to do powerful things with your bonus action, that's an action economy win.


Ultimately, Druids simply have a worse spell list, and nothing they have as a class feature comes close to Portent or making Mirage Arcana real.

Eh, Portent isn't as good as its reputation. It's basically just Heighten Spell (Sorcerer metamagic) in different clothing. If e.g. a vampire fails its save only on a 4 or less, Portent gives you more chances to have that 4, and you know about those chances in advance, but it's still more likely than not that nothing you can do can make the vampire fail its save. And it doesn't help against legendary resistances at all.

I honestly think Shepherd Druids' ability to make their animal attacks count as magical (and get extra HP for free) is much stronger than Portent, but since we're talking about Moon Druids right now that's too much of a tangent...


I firmly disagree. First off, I believe you are presenting a false dichotomy here, that seems to be an extension of the "Roleplayers vs Rollplayers" line of thought. But secondly, rolling poorly is less of a big deal in the "CAS" model, because, as you say, the GM is setting things up with you having an edge, but your example for "CAW" is more in line with your thoughts on "CAS." Essentially, you're running on GM mercy that there's an aggressive, high CR predator right by whatever you're fighting and the giant follows you instead of using its ranged attacks.

Er, no. I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I just gave an example of one way you kill the Fire Giant using CAW tactics without requiring an optimized spell DC, but a swarm of Giant Owls works just as well, and so does passing out drow sleep poison (that you got off the bodies of dead drow) to your skeleton archers, and so does baiting the fire giant into chasing you into a river and then casting Wall of Force to drown him, or getting TWO wizards together and doing the Wall of Force + Cloudkill combo on him (although that's overkill really for a single fire giant).

As for ranged attacks, well, staying out of range of those is what Phantom Steed is for. (Or Fly, if you really must, although it's overpriced for that usage.) Or just a regular horse.

I can't tell you in one post what are all the ways to kill a Fire Giant in CAW mentality because there are so many, so don't think because I didn't name them all that the one I did happen to name is the only one.

Anyway, I can tell you from experience that rolled stats are not a handicap to fun or a bar to effectiveness in a CAW campaign, so if you're saying that they are even less of a handicap in a CAS campaign, then I guess we're on basically the same page: rolled stats are not a handicap to fun or a bar to effectiveness, period.


Furthermore, let me pose a hypothetical: Would you play in or run a game where each player rolled for their starting level? Say, the game starts at level 2d4 or so?

Yes. I often have players roll 1d3 for the starting level of each new PC that gets brought into a campaign. It's a pretty small difference in total XP and it rapidly ceases to matter as PCs advance and/or get killed, but it adds some nice flavor that makes the point that PCs had a life and maybe even some experience before becoming PCs.


If I roll 2 18s and the rest 12 or below, despite that being an amazing roll otherwise I can't build the multiclass paladin/warlock archer I've actually built on PB.

???

Half-elf paladin/warlock

Str 13 (12)
Dex 18
Con 12 (11)
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 20 (18)

[Zanthy1]

Personally I am a huge fan of rolling, especially as a player. However I make sure that all dice are rolled in front of the DM, and ideally the rest of the party. I like having a minimum of 8 and maybe even a cap of 16-17 (before racials).

However in the past i have used point buy because it decreases the differences between characters, and most importantly I don't have players fudging rolls or something (which normally can be mitigated by making em roll in front of me, but some of my players need extra attention).

[MaxWilson]

Personally I am a huge fan of rolling, especially as a player. However I make sure that all dice are rolled in front of the DM, and ideally the rest of the party. I like having a minimum of 8 and maybe even a cap of 16-17 (before racials).

However in the past i have used point buy because it decreases the differences between characters, and most importantly I don't have players fudging rolls or something (which normally can be mitigated by making em roll in front of me, but some of my players need extra attention).

As a player, if I'm at all concerned about trust issues around rolling I just ask the DM to roll my stats for me in advance and IM them to my on Facebook or something. It doesn't matter how you GET them, only what you make out of them.

[strangebloke]

Does it really, though? If you roll one god stat and the rest are 8s or 12s, you're pretty much forced into a caster roll so you can not be awful. If I roll 2 18s and the rest 12 or below, despite that being an amazing roll otherwise I can't build the multiclass paladin/warlock archer I've actually built on PB. Different things have different requirements, and the lack of control of rolling means you're often stuck with less varied characters, due to being unable to meet the requirements to either even build a character, or just have the character be decent. This is doubly true since you also have to choose between stat boosts and things that actually, mechanically distinguish your character from any other character of the same class and specialty other than simply being flat worse then them because they rolled an 18 and you didn't.

Furthermore, let me pose a hypothetical: Would you play in or run a game where each player rolled for their starting level? Say, the game starts at level 2d4 or so? It gives you a bunch of variance right there, even if characters have the same class and specialty, they would play totally differently. If not, why not? It really is the same thing as rolling stats. You're arbitrarily giving some players directly more or less power and restricting options with no concern for party balance.
This kind of thing really cannot be overstated, although this is a problem with 5e's skill system as much as it is with rolling.

If I rolled an 18, three 12s, and, two 8s, I could actually play pretty much anything.

Mountain Dwarf cleric with 14 STR, 14 CON, and 18 WIS.
Rock Gnome Eldritch Knight with 18 STR, 13 CON, and 14 INT.
Bugbear Hexasorcadin with 14 STR, 13 DEX, and 18 CHA.
Half-orc Barbarian with 20 STR, 12 DEX, and 13 CON.

Yeah, it constrains you a bit wrt race, but if a player wanted to reroll specifically to fit a concept, I would let them push around the stats a bit. Really though, rolling tends to have the opposite effect; that you tend to end up with a lot of *good* stats and no where to put them. That's when characters gets more interesting. Finally the barbarian actually has a 12 in CHA, Finally the sorcerer actually has decent strength. Rolled character will actuall have odd stats which makes character progression a lot more interesting.

And yeah, it gives a chance for a slight power gap. I like to mitigate that, and my probability estimates earlier were done so that I could figure things out a bit better. I think that 4d6 b3 is probably a bit too much variance for my tastes.

Giving out random levels is clearly way more significant than giving out random stats.

[Tanarii]

The problem here is that there isn't balance in 4d6k3. While it's got an acceptable average, the deviation is actually pretty huge. While being able to swap stats with others would be a degree of improvement, it's simply a patch over the larger problem that rolling results in unbalanced characters.Compared to each of 6 players rolling 4d6b3 6 times, and then having free pick of array? Compared to 4d6b3 no scores below 8? Yeah, it's balanced.


Actually, it is a pretty big chance.

First, let me pose a hypothetical: Would you accept a point buy system of 20+2d4, of course without rerolls? It gives you the variation you want, but also gives people control over their stats, which actually aids both MAD and SAD classes. This gives you a range of abilities that, at minimum, was described in 3e, which admittedly had a somewhat different(read "better" PB system) as "challenging," an average of "standard," which maps to the default array, and a maximum of "tougher," so you can end up with both hardcore badasses and highly limited wimps in the same party.

One standard deviation below 4d6k3, which is equivalent to 25PB, is the average NPC array, which is equivalent to 15PB, while one standard deviation above is 33PB. That's a huge risk, and I'm pretty sure that's why most of the people here who are advocating rolling are talking about doing something other than 4d6k3 when they actually talk about how they do it.

So going back to the above hypothetical, if that point buy had too much variance, why would you want a system with significantly more variance?First of all, I don't want any variance. I'm fine with players taking their choice of rolling or standard array. And it's their choice if they want to take the risk. The risk is less than 50% lower, and more than 50% higher, with a mean above the standard array.

However, I take your point that the deviation from the mean is probably higher than I gave it credit for with my comment about "chance". I mean, there's a reason we (as DMs) have to worry about rolling giving a player significantly above the standard array. Not just a high mean, but a fairly wide deviation.

[Finney]

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.

I used to allow rolling, but it invariably ended up with players that rolled low and were unhappy with the character. This typically led to disruptive behavior and/or the player actively seeking ways to get their character killed.

In my experience, players want to roll because it can generate higher stats than point buy and the standard array. Those same players are usually disgruntled and/or disruptive if they get bad rolls, though.

Allowing players to roll for stats is just not worth it, in my opinion.

[Selene Sparks]

And so do druids. Instead of turning gold into Symbols, druids get to turn gold into Planar Bound elementals, T-Rexes (via Conjure Fey), korreds, and hag covens, for example. Both druids and wizards are top-notch at the gold-into-power game.Planar binding is outperformed by Animate Dead, even without getting into the better necromancy effects. Symbol can insta-kill I believe literally anything in the game not immune to necrotic damage with a bag of holding and if you also use Glyphs, you can get around even that. Conjure Fey is an hour-long concentration effect that generates enemies if you lose it. I'm not seeing the appeal.

You're missing something. Let me introduce you to the joys of Conjure Animals. 16 Giant Poisonous Snakes (or Giant Owls, or Wolves, or pretty much anything really) for an hour with one action absolutely pwns 10 shuriken for sixty seconds, especially considering that (arguably) you have to spend some time distributing the shurikens over a wide area first before you cast the spell, because you can only have 4 Tiny creatures in a 5' cube.I concede this point, I forgot about the multiplier in Conjure Animal.

It's because you can do things like:

"Argh! An Umber Hulk just popped up in my face! On my turn, I look away from it so I don't have to make the save (this is always legal but of course makes it easier for the Umber Hulk to attack you), cast Conjure Animals III and tell all the animals to kill that Umber Hulk, wildshape into a Giant Owl, and fly away [without taking opportunity attacks because Giant Owls have Flyby]."

Any time you get to do powerful things with your bonus action, that's an action economy win.Alternatively, you can be prepared, as you still should have perception against it's stealth, but also, a wizard can do one better via, once again, glyph of warding. By using a bag of holding, you bring a glyph of Leomund's tiny hut, toss it five feet away from you, and trigger it and you are absolutely immune to anything the Umberhulk(or literally any other monster in the game) can do. Or you can simply contagion it and autowin. Or you can sic your shuriken on it. Or simply have your skeleton army murder it as easily as it can basically everything else in the game.

Wildshape has decent utility. It's not an awful ability. It's just not good, and simply having the wizard list is better than the entirety of the druid class.

Eh, Portent isn't as good as its reputation. It's basically just Heighten Spell (Sorcerer metamagic) in different clothing. If e.g. a vampire fails its save only on a 4 or less, Portent gives you more chances to have that 4, and you know about those chances in advance, but it's still more likely than not that nothing you can do can make the vampire fail its save. And it doesn't help against legendary resistances at all.I concur with Portent not being that good, it simply doesn't have much competition and has a great deal of utility. Wildshape also has utility, yes, but utility that can be replicated by other means, whereas Portent gives you a very useful and totally unique resource.

I honestly think Shepherd Druids' ability to make their animal attacks count as magical (and get extra HP for free) is much stronger than Portent, but since we're talking about Moon Druids right now that's too much of a tangent...Maybe, but the animal companion means you're a druid and not a class with Animate Dead.

Er, no. I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I just gave an example of one way you kill the Fire Giant using CAW tactics without requiring an optimized spell DC, but a swarm of Giant Owls works just as well, and so does passing out drow sleep poison (that you got off the bodies of dead drow) to your skeleton archers, and so does baiting the fire giant into chasing you into a river and then casting Wall of Force to drown him, or getting TWO wizards together and doing the Wall of Force + Cloudkill combo on him (although that's overkill really for a single fire giant).These are all good strategies. You'll note, though, I was explicitly referring to not breaking the game open, which undead archers do. However, again, you're talking about baiting it when, unless you're using something like the skeletons of doom, it's got a better range than most of your spells.

As for ranged attacks, well, staying out of range of those is what Phantom Steed is for. (Or Fly, if you really must, although it's overpriced for that usage.) Or just a regular horse.I concur in principle, again the fire giant has a range better than you(but worse than your archers, so it doesn't really matter). Phantom Steed is a bit risky because of its fragility, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

I can't tell you in one post what are all the ways to kill a Fire Giant in CAW mentality because there are so many, so don't think because I didn't name them all that the one I did happen to name is the only one.Obviously, but my objection lies in the fact that your example didn't match your description.

Anyway, I can tell you from experience that rolled stats are not a handicap to fun or a bar to effectiveness in a CAW campaign, so if you're saying that they are even less of a handicap in a CAS campaign, then I guess we're on basically the same page: rolled stats are not a handicap to fun or a bar to effectiveness, period.No, I'm saying they're a detriment to party balance, and by extension enjoyment. If you have the DM fluffing things for you such that there's no risk, it won't matter so much, but if you run the game without that, the randomness can dramatically damage any build plans, and party balance. And you know what? It feels pretty awful being bad at your job or essentially dead weight, and it feels even worse to be in a party and have your friend not having fun because they're essentially dead weight, and all of this can result of things entirely out of your control. And that is a problem.

Yes. I often have players roll 1d3 for the starting level of each new PC that gets brought into a campaign. It's a pretty small difference in total XP and it rapidly ceases to matter as PCs advance and/or get killed, but it adds some nice flavor that makes the point that PCs had a life and maybe even some experience before becoming PCs.That sounds really awful. Players have experience before the game - that's why they have actual levels and aren't build with the asymmetrical NPC rules. And, more importantly, it ties into the above. Being useful, being good at your job, and contributing to the party are kind of important, and if you walk in at level one, essentially without class features, especially with notably sub-par stats, and everyone else is level three with above average stats, the game is going to go pretty poorly.


???

Half-elf paladin/warlock

Str 13 (12)
Dex 18
Con 12 (11)
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 20 (18)Admittedly, I did use a bad example(I forgot half-elves have +1 to whatever they feel like). But imagine, instead, you roll 18, 17, 10, 10, 9, 6, which is the array I actually rolled the last time I rolled a D&D character. Now if you're a wizard, for example, you're not going to care, you're just going to be a feat human, walk in with 20 int and 18 con and not care about much else, but if you need to have some weird multiclass combo, that's a feat cost at minimum. Or, again, you walk into a party with a guy rocking an 18, two 16s, and everything else above 10, and your best stat is a single 14(Worth noting, this is the example that finally killed rolling with my group), and that's going to be a large problem.


And yeah, it gives a chance for a slight power gap. I like to mitigate that, and my probability estimates earlier were done so that I could figure things out a bit better. I think that 4d6 b3 is probably a bit too much variance for my tastes.If that's too much variation, how much variation do you want? Why is the player's will given a limitation of point not an adequate variation? And why is variation in absolute power between PCs even a desirable trait at all?

Giving out random levels is clearly way more significant than giving out random stats.Is it, though? If you roll a god roll, say 18, 16, 16, 14, 13, 11 and level 2 and then player 2 rolls 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9 and level 3, despite being a level down, you've still got class features and you're looking at having at least +2 over player 2 on whatever you feel like. You might, maybe, have a minor disadvantage in comparison due to spell levels and HP, but as things progress, you will rapidly become better and only stay better.

In other words, I agree that rolling for levels is way too much variance in power for a party, but it's easy to demonstrate it can easily result in less long-term variance than rolling stats. So, again, what does that say about rolling stats?

Compared to each of 6 players rolling 4d6b3 6 times, and then having free pick of array? Compared to 4d6b3 no scores below 8? Yeah, it's balanced.Just so I'm understanding what you're saying, are you, in fact, claiming that a system with minimal variance control is more balanced than two hypothetical systems with greater variance control?

I don't think you're saying that, but it looks like that's what you're saying, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.

First of all, I don't want any variance. I'm fine with players taking their choice of rolling or standard array. And it's their choice if they want to take the risk. The risk is less than 50% lower, and more than 50% higher, with a mean above the standard array.If you don't want variance, you shouldn't be using a system that strongly incentivizes variance. Rolling is a better choice because it is more likely to give you a better stat in your primary stat, but rolling, despite being the mechanically stronger option, is the worse system.

[ZorroGames]

BLUF: It is what you do with your build points that makes your character’s start but what you do afterwards is more important.

I make my race, class decision before any point method.

I played OD&D with a character with “high” rolls of 12 and 10 the rest 9 and below. It worked. In 5e I prefer to have some more control.

I know that my Mountain Dwarf will have an average or better ST and CO. I arrange the numbers to be good to great in my class than note what I want to do to make the character as good as possible in his class, sometimes by ASI/feat and sometimes by MCing where that works.

Looking at my Notebook of Mountain Dwarf Characters I see:

Barbarian starting with two 17s and a 14 for ST, CO, and DE making him AC 15/17 with shield. Works fine.

Bard with 16s in ST and CO, 14 CH which works. Save those GP for Mt. Dw. proficiency in Medium Armor and boost CH. Slow start perhaps but by 8th level it works just fine.

Cleric (life which needs no feats honestly) starting 15 ST and WI and 16 CO should progress fine also.

Druid, my weakest role play class, the Land (Coast) character starts with 17 CO, 15 WI and ST. Being mostly a support spellcaster that should work.

Fighter (ST) 17 ST and CO are a great start.

Fighter (DE) with a 16 CO, 15 DE, and 13 ST/12 WI should grow into his class potential just fine.

Paladin (skipping my Paladin 2/Bard X) starts with 16 ST and CO, 14 CH. A good start.

Ranger (ST) 16 ST, 14 CO, 13 DE, 13 WI should grow to fine by level 8.

My Rogue? The Enforcer/Burglar/thuggish one starts with 16 ST and CO and 14 DE. Which is perfectly fine for his role. Stealth is+6 with expertise.

Sorcerer - my least favorite class - ST 16, CO 16, CH 14. My biggest concern is my skill in RP of the class.

My Warlock Blackmailer starts with 16 in ST and CO and 14 in CH. slower start but I think level 8 should be kickass “tainted” hero level.

My Wizards (2 builds) are are rocking Tier 1 with 15 IN, 14 ST/DE/CO or 16 CO, 15 ST and IN. “Stickiest” spells no but get back to me at level 8. Both the Sage and the Noble has 3-4 x +4 knowledge skills. Melee? One hires “muscle” for that tawdry duty...

[Pex]

I used to allow rolling, but it invariably ended up with players that rolled low and were unhappy with the character. This typically led to disruptive behavior and/or the player actively seeking ways to get their character killed.

In my experience, players want to roll because it can generate higher stats than point buy and the standard array. Those same players are usually disgruntled and/or disruptive if they get bad rolls, though.

Allowing players to roll for stats is just not worth it, in my opinion.

You can solve that problem by increasing the Point Buy value and allow purchasing above 15. For easier math use 3E's system with 28 or 32 points or Pathfinder's system with 20 or 25. 5E Humans have it tough getting an 18 at first level, but they can have it easily at 4th. The bonus feat for Variant Human is still nice. Normal Humans get a good discount for well rounded characters since they can purchase the cheaper odd scores and let the +1s make them even for the higher modifier. The problem is not Point Buy but 5E's implementation of it.

[MaxWilson]

Planar binding is outperformed by Animate Dead, even without getting into the better necromancy effects. Symbol can insta-kill I believe literally anything in the game not immune to necrotic damage with a bag of holding and if you also use Glyphs, you can get around even that. Conjure Fey is an hour-long concentration effect that generates enemies if you lose it. I'm not seeing the appeal.

Remember that we're talking about ways to turn gold into power as a wizard and as a druid. Symbol is one way (although it won't insta-kill "literally anything" because similar spell effects don't stack, so 10d10 per round is all you're going to get--and since Symbol ends if you move it more than 10' from where it was cast, it's quite difficult to use Symbol offensively, bag of holding or no). Planar Binding is another, more cost-effective but also more spell slot-intensive to get long durations out of it. Druids have a different selection of easily-available summons than wizards do, less about the demons and more about spellcasting fey who are arguably better.

Conjure Fey (T-Rex) + Planar Binding = T-Rex minion.
Conjure Fey (Korred) + Planar Binding = Korred minion with excellent ranged attacks and built-in Galeb Duhr + boulder sub-minions.
Conjure Fey (Annis Hag) + Planar Binding, x3 = hag coven with Counterspell, Lightning Bolt, Scrying, Eyebite, etc., plus excellent physical attacks.


I concede this point, I forgot about the multiplier in Conjure Animal.

And do you understand the implications? Moon Druids scale very well, due to this spell among others, and they don't require awesome stats to do it.


Alternatively, you can be prepared, as you still should have perception against it's stealth, but also, a wizard can do one better via, once again, glyph of warding. By using a bag of holding, you bring a glyph of Leomund's tiny hut, toss it five feet away from you, and trigger it and you are absolutely immune to anything the Umberhulk(or literally any other monster in the game) can do. Or you can simply contagion it and autowin. Or you can sic your shuriken on it. Or simply have your skeleton army murder it as easily as it can basically everything else in the game.

Questionable interpretations of Glyph of Warding aside, the fact that you're talking about non-attribute-dependent spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut, Animate Object, and Animate Dead makes my point for me. In any case, here I was answering your question about how wildshape results in an excellent action economy and high mobility, so changing the subject to wizard exploits is beside the point.


Wildshape has decent utility. It's not an awful ability. It's just not good, and simply having the wizard list is better than the entirety of the druid class.
I concur with Portent not being that good, it simply doesn't have much competition and has a great deal of utility. Wildshape also has utility, yes, but utility that can be replicated by other means, whereas Portent gives you a very useful and totally unique resource.

It's very hard to replicate the Moon Druid's Combat Wildshape combination of bonus action mobility (including flight, immunity to opportunity attacks, and/or even punishing those who attack you), compatibility with same-round spellcasting, and lack of concentration requirement. Some subclasses can do something similar in their own way (Divine Soul, Dragon Sorcerer), but it's not something you can pick up with a two-level investment like you can for Portent.


Maybe, but the animal companion means you're a druid and not a class with Animate Dead.

And Animate Dead is a terrific spell which is not in any way dependent upon what stats you roll. QED.


These are all good strategies. You'll note, though, I was explicitly referring to not breaking the game open, which undead archers do. However, again, you're talking about baiting it when, unless you're using something like the skeletons of doom, it's got a better range than most of your spells.

I believe I mentioned four additional CAW strategies there, of which only one involves baiting. It seems odd that you dismiss them all out of hand. If a druid wants to kill a Fire Giant with a swarm of 16 Giant Owls, the Fire Giant has no realistic hope of stopping them, and it has nothing at all to do with baiting nor is it something the Fire Giant can prevent with boulder attacks (of which it only has 2-5 anyway IIRC, per MM on ammunition).


I concur in principle, again the fire giant has a range better than you(but worse than your archers, so it doesn't really matter). Phantom Steed is a bit risky because of its fragility, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

As an aside, I think you have something to learn about using mounts effectively. Phantom Steed has a 100' speed and like all mounts can Dash with its action without any action cost to you. Fire Giants have 240' range (at disadvantage) on their boulder attacks. A wizard 250' away from you at the start of his turn can be in your face and casting spells on you before you know it; unless you spend your turns Readying actions (which has its own downside) you can't even hit him with a rock before he gets in range to cast his spell. This is in fact what makes baiting possible: high mobility to keep out of range, plus long-range harassment (e.g. crossbow) while giving the Fire Giant reasons not to pursue too closely.

But this is tangential to the discussion on stats and whether Necromancers and Moon Druids are viable choices for someone who rolls poorly.


Obviously, but my objection lies in the fact that your example didn't match your description.

I trust my point has been sufficiently clarified by now.


No, I'm saying they're a detriment to party balance, and by extension enjoyment. If you have the DM fluffing things for you such that there's no risk, it won't matter so much, but if you run the game without that, the randomness can dramatically damage any build plans, and party balance. And you know what? It feels pretty awful being bad at your job or essentially dead weight, and it feels even worse to be in a party and have your friend not having fun because they're essentially dead weight, and all of this can result of things entirely out of your control. And that is a problem.

You've already conceded that PCs can be game-wreckingly good in either a CAW or (according to you) a CAS context, even without good stats. So if you're playing a deadweight character, it's not out of your own hands. You can change your choices and thereby change the outcome.

[Eric Diaz]

Porque no los dos?

If you want PCs that are both random/surprising AND balanced at the same time, you can use the two methods.

(bear in mind that ALL the numbers below can be modified by your race. Half-elves could start with 17 charisma, for example).

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2018/01/random-point-buy-abilities-for-d-5e.html

Roll 1d65... Or 1d50, to avoid "boring" balanced builds.

d100 Ability scores
1 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8
2 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8
3 15, 15, 14, 9, 9, 8
4 15, 15, 13, 12, 8, 8
5 15, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8
6 15, 15, 13, 10, 10, 8
7 15, 15, 13, 10, 9, 9
8 15, 15, 12, 12, 9, 8
9 15, 15, 12, 11, 10, 8
10 15, 15, 12, 11, 9, 9
11 15, 15, 12, 10, 10, 9
12 15, 15, 11, 11, 11, 8
13 15, 15, 11, 11, 10, 9
14 15, 15, 11, 10, 10, 10
15 15, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8
16 15, 14, 14, 11, 9, 8
17 15, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8
18 15, 14, 14, 10, 9, 9
19 15, 14, 13, 13, 9, 8
20 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
21 15, 14, 13, 12, 9, 9
22 15, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8
23 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 9
24 15, 14, 13, 10, 10, 10
25 15, 14, 12, 12, 11, 8
26 15, 14, 12, 12, 10, 9
27 15, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9
28 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10
29 15, 14, 11, 11, 11, 10
30 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8
31 15, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9
32 15, 13, 13, 12, 12, 8
33 15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9
34 15, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10
35 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10
36 15, 13, 12, 12, 12, 9
37 15, 13, 12, 12, 11, 10
38 15, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11
39 15, 12, 12, 12, 12, 10
40 15, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11
41 14, 14, 14, 13, 9, 8
42 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
43 14, 14, 14, 12, 9, 9
44 14, 14, 14, 11, 11, 8
45 14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 9
46 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10
47 14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 8
48 14, 14, 13, 13, 10, 9
49 14, 14, 13, 12, 12, 8
50 14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9
51 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10
52 14, 14, 13, 11, 11, 10
53 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, 9
54 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10
55 14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 11
56 14, 13, 13, 13, 13, 8
57 14, 13, 13, 13, 12, 9
58 14, 13, 13, 13, 11, 10
59 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10
60 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11
61 14, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11
62 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
63 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10
64 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 11
65 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12

[Tanarii]

more balanced than two hypothetical systems with greater variance control?

I don't think you're saying that, but it looks like that's what you're saying, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.


If you don't want variance, you shouldn't be using a system that strongly incentivizes variance. Rolling is a better choice because it is more likely to give you a better stat in your primary stat, but rolling, despite being the mechanically stronger option, is the worse system.
Players rolling one set of stats for them is more balanced instead of six players each rolling a set and picking the strongest one. Players rolling a set that has a mean around the standard array instead of one that caps it (on the bottom end) is .... okay that one might be a wash, honestly. I'd have to look at what it does to the statistical distribution. It might just result in a few more 8s than 9s on the bottom end.
(Edit: looks like it makes 8s a bit more likely than 9 or 10. So balanced enough.
http://anydice.com/program/f2c2 )

And I should have said I don't really care about variance personally, whereas the OP does. But I also don't care if players want to roll dice because they're hoping for scores above the average or because they say they like variance or randomness or whatever. As long as they're using the official system that is roughly balanced with standard array, and they stick with whatever they roll the first time, I'm happy.

My remarks you're chasing down and stomping all over were one of two suggestions directed at the OP for his personal consideration to see if they did what he wanted. I totally get jumping in on something someone posted part way through a thread and attacking it. After all, it's not like I haven't done that myself a bajillion times. But I'm finding myself suddenly wondering why I'm having to defend suggestions to the OP from a third party. It's undoubtably ironic for me to be on this side of it. :smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

Porque no los dos?

If you want PCs that are both random/surprising AND balanced at the same time, you can use the two methods.

Sure. There are those who find the very limited randomness in the list of 65 arrays you presented patently insufficient though (they are all very samey), which is why we stick with rolling.

[Finney]

You can solve that problem by increasing the Point Buy value and allow purchasing above 15. For easier math use 3E's system with 28 or 32 points or Pathfinder's system with 20 or 25. 5E Humans have it tough getting an 18 at first level, but they can have it easily at 4th. The bonus feat for Variant Human is still nice. Normal Humans get a good discount for well rounded characters since they can purchase the cheaper odd scores and let the +1s make them even for the higher modifier. The problem is not Point Buy but 5E's implementation of it.

In my experience, the standard array and the point buy (27 points) method recommended in the PHB is sufficient if you are using modules or material published by WotC. In fact, I imagine they play test and balance their own material around the standard array and/or point buy rather than rolled stats.

When I use my own material, I will generally offer my players the option of a modified standard array: 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18 for character creation, since I don't have the benefit of play testing material for balance purposes (so the characters being a bit stronger than normal protects against any mistakes that I make in design).

[Selene Sparks]

Remember that we're talking about ways to turn gold into power as a wizard and as a druid. Symbol is one way (although it won't insta-kill "literally anything" because similar spell effects don't stack, so 10d10 per round is all you're going to get--and since Symbol ends if you move it more than 10' from where it was cast, it's quite difficult to use Symbol offensively, bag of holding or no). Planar Binding is another, more cost-effective but also more spell slot-intensive to get long durations out of it. Druids have a different selection of easily-available summons than wizards do, less about the demons and more about spellcasting fey who are arguably better.You seem to be having a misunderstanding of the stacking rules. They aren't similar spell effects any more than multiple skeletons shooting you with longbows or a quickened fireball after a fireball are. Each one is a separate effect that specifically targets everything within range.

And as for using a symbol bomb, it's super easy. You simply Glyph up your hut of invincibility, remove a bag full of kill Symbols from your Bag of Holding, have an Unseen Servant or a mummy or what have you carry it just outside your bunker, trigger the Symbols, and anything not immune to Symbol dies.

Conjure Fey (T-Rex) + Planar Binding = T-Rex minion.
Conjure Fey (Korred) + Planar Binding = Korred minion with excellent ranged attacks and built-in Galeb Duhr + boulder sub-minions.
Conjure Fey (Annis Hag) + Planar Binding, x3 = hag coven with Counterspell, Lightning Bolt, Scrying, Eyebite, etc., plus excellent physical attacks.The only impressive thing in there is the hag coven, although I can't find the korred. Is it in Volo's?

Anyways, this is actually a pretty useful thing, mostly because of Eyebite, but fails to match the power of Glyph/Symbols or Create Undead.

And do you understand the implications? Moon Druids scale very well, due to this spell among others, and they don't require awesome stats to do it.Yes, certain casters can, in fact, attack the game at its most glaring weak point, essentially poorly imitating the wizards. A wizard, however, does it better and for free, and by spending money they still have better effects, such as simulacra(which don't time out like Planar Binding and can engage in some truly absurd shennanigans at higher levels, not to mention turn into additional backup skeleton archers once they're expended).

It's also worth noting, as a side note, that this has nothing to do with Circle of the Moon. A druid without class features could do exactly what you're suggesting at the exact same power, which again leads to the status of "full caster pretending they're a wizard," which is, as I've already mentioned, the second most powerful thing in the game.

Questionable interpretations of Glyph of Warding aside, the fact that you're talking about non-attribute-dependent spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut, Animate Object, and Animate Dead makes my point for me. In any case, here I was answering your question about how wildshape results in an excellent action economy and high mobility, so changing the subject to wizard exploits is beside the point.It appears, then, that I misinterpreted your statement. I took your statement to be that wildshape was a scaling ability comparable to those of a wizards, given the topic at hand. If you meant it's a decent ability for getting for free while being a full caster, I don't disagree, but that's more because it's free and you're a caster in the casteriest edition to ever caster.

It's very hard to replicate the Moon Druid's Combat Wildshape combination of bonus action mobility (including flight, immunity to opportunity attacks, and/or even punishing those who attack you), compatibility with same-round spellcasting, and lack of concentration requirement. Some subclasses can do something similar in their own way (Divine Soul, Dragon Sorcerer), but it's not something you can pick up with a two-level investment like you can for Portent.Wizards, as mentioned, can. Stick your hand in your bag of holding/handy haversack and trigger a bunch of buffs. Far step, flight, etc, and unlike a druid, they can share this with the rest of the party.

And Animate Dead is a terrific spell which is not in any way dependent upon what stats you roll. QED.You'll note I gave caveats about if you were avoiding breaking the game. If you use Animate Dead, you can pretty easily kill almost everything that's not a tarrasque or rakshasa.

I believe I mentioned four additional CAW strategies there, of which only one involves baiting. It seems odd that you dismiss them all out of hand. If a druid wants to kill a Fire Giant with a swarm of 16 Giant Owls, the Fire Giant has no realistic hope of stopping them, and it has nothing at all to do with baiting nor is it something the Fire Giant can prevent with boulder attacks (of which it only has 2-5 anyway IIRC, per MM on ammunition).I apologize if I was unclear. I was only attempting to dismiss the baiting strategy, while explicitly referring to the abuse of bounded accuracy as "breaking the game."

As an aside, I think you have something to learn about using mounts effectively. Phantom Steed has a 100' speed and like all mounts can Dash with its action without any action cost to you. Fire Giants have 240' range (at disadvantage) on their boulder attacks. A wizard 250' away from you at the start of his turn can be in your face and casting spells on you before you know it; unless you spend your turns Readying actions (which has its own downside) you can't even hit him with a rock before he gets in range to cast his spell. This is in fact what makes baiting possible: high mobility to keep out of range, plus long-range harassment (e.g. crossbow) while giving the Fire Giant reasons not to pursue too closely.I disagree, I think you're undervaluing readied actions.

That said, it's a larger concern that our hypothetical wizard is also totally immune to the fire giant anyways, so it's rather beside the point.

You've already conceded that PCs can be game-wreckingly good in either a CAW or (according to you) a CAS context, even without good stats. So if you're playing a deadweight character, it's not out of your own hands. You can change your choices and thereby change the outcome.I believe I opened the discussion with this. Wizards are better then everyone, followed by other casters pretending to be wizards, and the gulf in power between both of those tiers and them and everyone else is such that stats don't much factor into it. Within the context of those tiers, your stats actually matter. Furthermore, it's worth remembering we're talking about abusing the first and third-ish strongest class in the game in the most powerful manners possible. What if someone wants to play a fighter or warlock or other not better-than-everything-else-put-together classes? A wizard can wreck the game effortlessly because they have the best tools in their toolbox, but a fighter really doesn't, and if they're looking at a line of 10s and 12s, they're gonna be pretty sad.

That aside, though, maybe this is a group culture thing, but I generally see it both as poor form to deliberately break the game when everyone's not specifically all for it(especially when you do it in such a way that it renders others essentially pointless) and think it's a problem when you are forced into the most overpowered or abusive strategies or options to be relevant.

Sure. There are those who find the very limited randomness in the list of 65 arrays you presented patently insufficient though (they are all very samey), which is why we stick with rolling.This hasn't addressed the question I raised above(admittedly directed at strangebloke); why is randomness in the power of PCs a desirable thing? Related, you said you do, in fact, roll a d3 for levels, but if that's good, why not scale it up? Everyone starts at level 1d8? You have the variation in power, and even more variation in function than what you get with rolling.

Alternatively, if your objection is the sameness of the stats, why not a more free point buy? It can give you all sorts of variation, and has the advantage of meaning that one PC isn't an ubergod while another is a wet noodle.

[Pex]

I'm still liking 27-25-23 which I learned years ago. It combines rolling with point buy.

1) Roll 4d6b3 three times, minimum of 7 even if rolled lower. These are your first three scores.

2) Choose one roll and subtract from 27, max 18 so no 27 - 7 = 20. This is your fourth score.

3) Choose a second roll and subtract from 25. Note that 25 - 7 = 18. This is your fifth score.

4) The last roll is subtracted from 23 for your sixth roll.

5) Add +2 to any one score, arrange as desired, apply racial modifiers. For 5E purposes this can allow for a max of 20 since in normal dice rolling you could roll an 18 and put a +2 racial modifier on it. Also compensates since a 7 can happen.

Example:

1) Rolled: 12, 5 which becomes 7, 11

2) 27 - 11 = 16

3) 25 - 7 = 18

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 12 + 2 = 14 for an array of 18, 16, 14, 11, 11, 7
Playing a Variant Human Paladin, put the +1s in the 11s and arrange to:

ST 18 DX 12 CO 14 IN 7 WI 12 CH 16

The 7 hurts. This method was created during 3E where it doesn't hurt as much and even Pathfinder lets you have a 7 in its Point Buy. For 5E it might be worth adjusting to minimum of 8. Your choice whether to allow 27 - 8 = 19, but you can easily go 25 - 8 = 17 and let the racial modifier make it 18 or 19.

[MaxWilson]

You seem to be having a misunderstanding of the stacking rules. They aren't similar spell effects any more than multiple skeletons shooting you with longbows or a quickened fireball after a fireball are. Each one is a separate effect that specifically targets everything within range.

Are we talking about the same thing here? Stacking Glyphs of Death?

Being in the area of 5 Glyphs of Death simultaneously will no more increase the damage to 50d10 per round than being in five Walls of Fire will result in 25d8 per round. Quoting from PHB 205,


The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. lnstead, the most potent effect-such as the highest bonus-from those castings applies while their durations overlap.

Multiple Symbols of Death = same spell cast multiple times = idempotent = same as one Symbol of Death.


And as for using a symbol bomb, it's super easy. You simply Glyph up your hut of invincibility, remove a bag full of kill Symbols from your Bag of Holding, have an Unseen Servant or a mummy or what have you carry it just outside your bunker, trigger the Symbols, and anything not immune to Symbol dies.

Stacking rule aside, this only works if your Bag of Holding is within 10' of where you originally cast the Symbol spells.


When you cast this spell, you inscribe a harmful glyph either on a surface (such as a section of floor, a wall, or a table) or within an object that can be closed to conceal the glyph (such as a book, a scroll, or a treasure chest). If you choose a surface, the glyph can cover an area of the surface no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If you choose an object, that object must remain in its place; if the object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.

Nothing about Bag of Holding changes that.


The only impressive thing in there is the hag coven, although I can't find the korred. Is it in Volo's?

Yes. Powerful ranged attacks, control (entangling) on a bonus action, built-in spellcasting which can allow chain summoning (Korred => summons Galeb Duhr => animates boulders).


Anyways, this is actually a pretty useful thing, mostly because of Eyebite, but fails to match the power of Glyph/Symbols or Create Undead.

Eyebite is pretty weak. IMO, the best thing about hag covens is getting three Counterspell casters.


Yes, certain casters can, in fact, attack the game at its most glaring weak point, essentially poorly imitating the wizards. A wizard, however, does it better and for free, and by spending money they still have better effects, such as simulacra(which don't time out like Planar Binding and can engage in some truly absurd shennanigans at higher levels, not to mention turn into additional backup skeleton archers once they're expended).

None of which requires high stats.


It's also worth noting, as a side note, that this has nothing to do with Circle of the Moon. A druid without class features could do exactly what you're suggesting at the exact same power

Yes. Circle of the Moon gets you over the initial hump of 1st-4th level, and gives you action economy and mobility options after that, but you could in principle take your all-low-stats character and make her a Shepherd Druid or even Land Druid instead. At low levels you'd want to lean on spells like Spike Growth (a.k.a. Poor Man's Fireball) and Pass Without Trace to make your contributions to party success. Depending on just how low your stats are, stuff like Entangle may still be valuable too. Obviously with Wis 3 Entangle is going to be pretty weak, but with Wis 12 it's still worth casting against orc hordes, etc.


Related, you said you do, in fact, roll a d3 for levels, but if that's good, why not scale it up? Everyone starts at level 1d8?

Because d3 is sufficient to introduce some flavor, while still giving PCs plenty of space to develop. Memories developed in play are better than backstory written on paper ("your backstory should never be more interesting than what happens in play"), and starting off at level 8 would, in my opinion, risk skipping over too much character development.

But it does happen sometimes that level 13 PCs and level 3 PCs wind up on the same adventure. The power disparity there absolutely dwarfs anything produced by stat rolling, and yet (in a CAW context, which tends to emphasize player skill over numeric modifiers) both PCs get to contribute and have fun. You opine that it's impossible for power differentials and fun to co-exist, but my experience tells me otherwise. As long as players have both freedom[1] and interesting, consequential choices to make, fun will happen.

[1] Specifically agency, as defined here: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/10/on-theory-defined-player-agency.html


Player Agency (n.): “the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention” -Mateas, 2001

[MaxWilson]

.
This hasn't addressed the question I raised above(admittedly directed at strangebloke); why is randomness in the power of PCs a desirable thing?

Overlooked responding to this.

Q: why do human beings like white noise?

A: something in our brains finds irregularity and chaos soothing, relaxing and/or inspiring.

If you don't feel it, then I guess you'll never understand.

P.S. Note also that it's more about personality than power. An int 12 wis 7 cha 4 mean old badger of a fighter with a gambling /impulse control problem is not noticeably more or less "powerful" than an int 7 wis 10 cha 13 loveable-good-natured-idiot fighter (like Elmo from ToEE). But they're interestingly different, and that variation is enjoyable.

[zinycor]

I love the way that 5e does point buy, since I first implemented it, have loved every second of it. It's very easy for first time players and is infuriating (in a good way) for players that come from other editions.

Personally i love making characters, and will always pick point buy since I love not having to depend on the dice to make the character I want to do. when rolling stats many times I have ended up dissapointed because of having characters having all stats above the average when I wanted to play a character with weaknesses or getting a character with weaknesses when I wanted to have a character more well rounded.

The only thing I would like is to have the option for other sets of stats for point buy. like 30, 32, 34 points? and some sets that allow stats above 15? Because, while am perfectly happy with the current restrictions as the default, having options is always good.

[strangebloke]

If that's too much variation, how much variation do you want? Why is the player's will given a limitation of point not an adequate variation? And why is variation in absolute power between PCs even a desirable trait at all?
Is it, though? If you roll a god roll, say 18, 16, 16, 14, 13, 11 and level 2 and then player 2 rolls 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9 and level 3, despite being a level down, you've still got class features and you're looking at having at least +2 over player 2 on whatever you feel like. You might, maybe, have a minor disadvantage in comparison due to spell levels and HP, but as things progress, you will rapidly become better and only stay better.

In other words, I agree that rolling for levels is way too much variance in power for a party, but it's easy to demonstrate it can easily result in less long-term variance than rolling stats. So, again, what does that say about rolling stats?
Just so I'm understanding what you're saying, are you, in fact, claiming that a system with minimal variance control is more balanced than two hypothetical systems with greater variance control?

I think there's a sweet spot in the level of variance. Point buy is totally deterministic. I don't like that. It pressures you into that same 'ol 15/15/14/10/10/8 spread, and if you don't get a race that has at least a +1 to two of your three main stats, you're going to be way behind your peers. As I showed earlier in the thread, the game practically puts you on a treadmill if you don't behave this way.

Random stats, meanwhile, lead to more nuanced, interesting characters, at the risk of creating completely overpowered or weak characters. Sure he's a fighter, but he's got 13 WIS, and that's kind of neat! The power disparity is fine so long as no-one gets horribly bad stats. This can happen with 4d6 b3, but stats like in your example are very unlikely. The first guy you list has total stats in the top 5 percent (and with a very nice spread), and the second guy you describe rolled total stats that are in the bottom 16% (with a somewhat unworkable spread). Comparing this to your earlier example of rolling for character level, that's equivalently unlikely to two people rolling a '3' and a '7' for character level. Comparing 4d6 b3 to using 2d4 to determine starting level is hyperbole.

Now, even then there are decent chances that at least one player will roll poorly. Most DMs hot-fix this by allowing people to reroll all their dice once, but that isn't a good way to do things by default. For that reason, I think an artificial floor needs to be added.

The most direct way to do this, and the one that I think I now prefer, is to roll 2d6+6 for each stat. It has a low floor, and nice average, an a relatively small amount of variance. This ends up giving everyone a slight boost overall, compared with point buy, but I rather like it.

[strangebloke]

This hasn't addressed the question I raised above(admittedly directed at strangebloke); why is randomness in the power of PCs a desirable thing? Related, you said you do, in fact, roll a d3 for levels, but if that's good, why not scale it up? Everyone starts at level 1d8? You have the variation in power, and even more variation in function than what you get with rolling.

Alternatively, if your objection is the sameness of the stats, why not a more free point buy? It can give you all sorts of variation, and has the advantage of meaning that one PC isn't an ubergod while another is a wet noodle.

You ever play chess? I do. It's fun, sort of, in a very cerebral way. But if you play the same people in the same format over and over, the game gets a bit repetitive and dry. You know the other person's arsenal pretty well and they know yours. Sometimes you'll win, and sometimes you'll lose, but at some point you're not playing the game, you're playing the other person, which isn't nearly as fun. So you mix it up. You play speed chess. You play chess whilst inebriated. You play with some stupid arbitrary restriction (pawns can't take pawns)

You have to introduce random elements sometimes to make things interesting.

I don't think that variability in power is desirable. I think that variability of stats is desirable. I don't think it's desirable, for instance, to have one player with all 18s and one with all 6s. But if my first character has 18/16/15/12/8/6 and my second has 17/15/14/14/14/10, that's going to be fun, and lead to very different characters overall. One of them is a brash, powerfully built paladin who always charges ahead, the other is a prodigy who is very good at what he does, but really could have succeeded at any sphere of life.

For example, if I build two STR-based paladins, I'll build them very similarly in terms of stats. They might have different skills, different backgrounds, different weapon styles... but the stats throughout the entire game will be nearly identical at every level. That's boring.

"Just don't play a Str-based paladin!" I hear you shout. Well, sure, I might not. But my buddy might, and guess what, nearly the exact same stat spread, at every level. Boring. I play a str-based bladelock/fighter multiclass? Pretty much the same stat spread, albeit off a level.

[MaxWilson]

Now, even then there are decent chances that at least one player will roll poorly. Most DMs hot-fix this by allowing people to reroll all their dice once, but that isn't a good way to do things by default. For that reason, I think an artificial floor needs to be added.


An alternate solution is to push the problem to the metagame layer and impose a cost on the *player* for rerolling.

For example, during the years I ran 5e, I made the standing offer to players that if you don't like your rolls, and you don't want to point buy, you can instead finish writing up the PC and then donate it to me for use as an NPC along with five other NPCs rolled up using 3d6. (This is to prevent stat inflation and help players remember that a 15 is in fact an unusually high score.) Then you can roll a new PC.

So far, no one has ever taken me up on that offer. I dunno, maybe they were afraid of what I would do with their "useless" PCs once they became NPCs. :)

(Players loved running into NPCs I had them create specifically as NPCs--they'd perk up when they ran into e.g. the Genasi cleric that smelled faintly of strawberries, and pay attention to him in a very special way because "I think that's Caligan!" or whatever his name was. But maybe it's different when the DM smiles evilly at the suggestion that low stat rolls make a PC "worthless." Or maybe they were all just fine with whatever stats they rolled in every campaign. I dunno.)

[strangebloke]

An alternate solution is to push the problem to the metagame layer and impose a cost on the *player* for rerolling.

For example, during the years I ran 5e, I made the standing offer to players that if you don't like your rolls, and you don't want to point buy, you can instead finish writing up the PC and then donate it to me for use as an NPC along with five other NPCs rolled up using 3d6. (This is to prevent stat inflation and help players remember that a 15 is in fact an unusually high score.) Then you can roll a new PC.

So far, no one has ever taken me up on that offer. I dunno, maybe they were afraid of what I would do with their "useless" PCs once they became NPCs. :)

(Players loved running into NPCs I had them create specifically as NPCs--they'd perk up when they ran into e.g. the Genasi cleric that smelled faintly of strawberries, and pay attention to him in a very special way because "I think that's Caligan!" or whatever his name was. But maybe it's different when the DM smiles evilly at the suggestion that low stat rolls make a PC "worthless." I dunno.)

Yeah, I think people are too attached to their character concepts at my table to really play in that way.

[danpit2991]

we usually decide as a group what method to use for stats but sometimes the dm tells us how, it depends on the tone of the campaign some time 3d6 straight is good sometime point buy it really depends on the table, IMO there is no best way but my favorite is 4d6 drop lowest but roll 3 sets of stat blocks and pick oh and all rolls are in front of the group

[Selene Sparks]

Are we talking about the same thing here? Stacking Glyphs of Death?

Being in the area of 5 Glyphs of Death simultaneously will no more increase the damage to 50d10 per round than being in five Walls of Fire will result in 25d8 per round. Quoting from PHB 205,



Multiple Symbols of Death = same spell cast multiple times = idempotent = same as one Symbol of Death.In this case you are incorrect. We're not talking about combining bonuses, which is what the entry you're talking about and quoting says, each is triggered independently. Even if you were correct, though, it genuinely doesn't matter because you can just stick a bunch of different Explosive runes which do the exact same job at a worse price.

Stacking rule aside, this only works if your Bag of Holding is within 10' of where you originally cast the Symbol spells.



Nothing about Bag of Holding changes that.You're missing the point. The bag is an extradimensional storage space. Within the bag is always within 10' of where the spell was cast if you cast it inside the bag.

Yes. Powerful ranged attacks, crowd control on a bonus action, built-in spellcasting which can allow chain summoning (Korred => summons Galeb Duhr => animates boulders).Honestly, this is incredibly inefficient compared to simulacrum, as you're relying on 2 different 1/day abilities, unless you're also binding your Galeb Duhr. And the best part is simulacra is that they don't time out.

Eyebite is pretty weak. IMO, the best thing about hag covens is getting three Counterspell casters.Counterspelling isn't very good here, because the most efficient strategies involve not actually casting spells to deal with whatever you need to because you have more actions. Eyebite, on the other hand, wins the action economy. It's a free SoD 1/round on anything you feel like per eyebite activated, plus you can have them cast whatever other spells you feel like.

None of which requires high stats.Neither does Pun-Pun. Wizards being better than everyone else ties into the systemic flaws in 5e, but it's still a distinct point from the fact that rolling is bad and having actual stats is good when the RNG is so small.

Yes. Circle of the Moon gets you over the initial hump of 1st-4th level, and gives you action economy and mobility options after that, but you could in principle take your all-low-stats character and make her a Shepherd Druid or even Land Druid instead. At low levels you'd want to lean on spells like Spike Growth (a.k.a. Poor Man's Fireball) and Pass Without Trace to make your contributions to party success. Depending on just how low your stats are, stuff like Entangle may still be valuable too. Obviously with Wis 3 Entangle is going to be pretty weak, but with Wis 12 it's still worth casting against orc hordes, etc.I remain unconvinced that this is going to be useful outside of the two~ level range that wildshape is useful. You still need stats to save-or-lose unless you're pretending to be a wizard, especially since druids don't get forcecage or Irresistable Dance.

Because d3 is sufficient to introduce some flavor, while still giving PCs plenty of space to develop. Memories developed in play are better than backstory written on paper ("your backstory should never be more interesting than what happens in play"), and starting off at level 8 would, in my opinion, risk skipping over too much character development.Ah, but it's not terribly likely you'll wind up with someone who's level 8, and besides, bounded accuracy means they're not going to be in a different world from the other PCs, excepting the strategies we're discussing. And I'm sure levels 9-20 are vastly more interesting than 1-7 anyways.

But if that's too much, why not d6? You're just unlocking some staples, and you're not terribly likely to have a gap of five levels, and even if you do, a level 6 has so much room to grow, I'm sure whatever happens in-game will be more interesting than their backstory.

But it does happen sometimes that level 13 PCs and level 3 PCs wind up on the same adventure. The power disparity there absolutely dwarfs anything produced by stat rolling, and yet (in a CAW context) both PCs get to contribute and have fun. Fun, maybe, but in your examples they sound entirely superfluous. You expend spells above the level of a third level character's options in all the strategies. You're advocating for, essentially, a kid running in an all-stars major league team against some local high school team and saying it doesn't matter because maybe the child maybe got walked or the pitcher felt bad and gave them an easy lob and pretending that is relevant.

You opine that it's impossible for power differentials and fun to co-exist, but my experience tells me otherwise. As long as players have both freedom[1] and interesting, consequential choices to make, fun will happen.Now here you're telling me that I am saying something I have explicitly said the opposite of in this thread. I would very much like you to not do this if we are to have a reasonable conversation.

What I am saying is that a large-scale power difference is likely to be detrimental and damaging to enjoyment, and most things to challenge the more powerful one, the weaker parties are entirely superfluous against. Now, there are ways around this. A wizard, for example, given enough money can set everyone up with a bag of buffs and walk around like it's 3.5 and the melee folks are going to feel pretty cool because they can fly, are much better at their job, and everyone wins. If you, however, just find whatever monster you need to kill for whatever reason and your herd of skeletons murders the heck out of it before they enter short range, the melee people are going to feel utterly superfluous because they were. The solution to dealing with a gross power imbalance is to leverage the power to elevate the weaker members. 5e in particular, unfortunately, doesn't have much in the way of options for this outside of glyph abuse because of the prevalence of concentration buffs, and it's a lot harder to ignore the fact that someone has over five times your HP, or have actual class features, or that their proficiency bonus is larger than their entire set of modifiers or everything else that they do to casually overpower them by existing because they have half the game's range over you.

That aside, yes, a GM can artificially construct an environment by arbitrarily enforcing bad NPC decisions, utilizing the actual character's class features, and fluffing everything like it's a down comforter to make it so people can pretend to not notice that level 3 character is entirely superfluous save as a loot-carrier to a level 10+ party, but that's not how the game functions, and the illusion will be pretty obvious whenever anyone even gives it the slightest though(Or the GM makes an error and accidentally catches the victim of the RNG in a level-appropriate AoE and they immediately die on account of being level three in an environment that can challenge level thirteens.

[1] Specifically agency, as defined hereYour own examples fail your definition on the second element, as well as the first. There isn't any conflict in a situation where a level three character is following some level thirteens because they have nothing to contribute and any appropriate monster will one-shot them, it's mathematically impossible for them to have relevant skills(and if this is coming up, element one probably also fails), and everyone is aware that they're only on the map because the universe is refusing to have them interact logically with the world.

Overlooked responding to this.

Q: why do human beings like white noise?

A: something in our brains finds irregularity and chaos soothing, relaxing and/or inspiring.

If you don't feel it, then I guess you'll never understand.

P.S. Note also that it's more about personality than power. An int 12 wis 7 cha 4 mean old badger of a fighter with a gambling /impulse control problem is not noticeably more or less "powerful" than an int 7 wis 10 cha 13 loveable-good-natured-idiot fighter (like Elmo from ToEE). But they're interestingly different, and that variation is enjoyable.You're having a rather strange conflation of RP and mechanics here. You don't need to have a sense of personal identity literally closer to a mossy pebble than the average human to play an impulsive, surly fighter. Heck, you don't even need a negative charisma to play "surly," you can just elect to have your character not use charisma skills(As a side note, this model would reflect multiple people I've actually known. Introverts or having issues, but when actively trying to be sociable, they could be smooth as buttered silk). And, again, this kind of thing can be directly done via point buy. You want to play the lovable idiot fighter? Train diplomacy, put some points in charisma if you want, and keep your intelligence at 8. And, while you do this, you ensure that the guy who wants to play a zappy warlock doesn't get rng-screwed out of the stat points they need and the person playing the sickly scholar of the natural world doesn't have to place their stats in weird ways to avoid the fact that they rolled nothing below a 11 and they can't get their strength low enough, dang it!


The only thing I would like is to have the option for other sets of stats for point buy. like 30, 32, 34 points? and some sets that allow stats above 15? Because, while am perfectly happy with the current restrictions as the default, having options is always good.This deserves repeating, because this solves one of the two problems with stats in 5e. If you just go back to the old standard for point buy and get rid of the nonsensical passive-aggressive "you don't have to roll" PB cap nonsense, you ensure both the party is balanced and everyone can get what they want or need for their concept.


I think there's a sweet spot in the level of variance. Point buy is totally deterministic. I don't like that. It pressures you into that same 'ol 15/15/14/10/10/8 spread, and if you don't get a race that has at least a +1 to two of your three main stats, you're going to be way behind your peers. As I showed earlier in the thread, the game practically puts you on a treadmill if you don't behave this way.I concur. And this, fundamentally, is a problem with 5e's weird retro-obsessive passive-aggression with stats. There's a better solution, though. You can, instead, use a sane point buy system and have both interparty balance and adequate stats for everyone's job.

Random stats, meanwhile, lead to more nuanced, interesting characters, at the risk of creating completely overpowered or weak characters. Sure he's a fighter, but he's got 13 WIS, and that's kind of neat! The power disparity is fine so long as no-one gets horribly bad stats. This can happen with 4d6 b3, but stats like in your example are very unlikely. The first guy you list has total stats in the top 5 percent (and with a very nice spread), and the second guy you describe rolled total stats that are in the bottom 16% (with a somewhat unworkable spread).Except it's not. One standard deviation above and you're going to be getting 16/15/14/12/11/10, whereas one standard deviation below is 13/12/11/10/9/8. You've got a 20% chance of getting what amounts to 33PB in 3e's system, and 20% of getting the stat array of the basic mooks in the town. Think about that and think about how big your gaming group is. You have more than 4? This kind of difference is inevitable and problematic, and only gets worse the longer time goes on via gygaxian selection(which can also contribute to warping stat expectations over time, but that's another topic)

Comparing this to your earlier example of rolling for character level, that's equivalently unlikely to two people rolling a '3' and a '7' for character level. Comparing 4d6 b3 to using 2d4 to determine starting level is hyperbole.It's really not, especially as time goes on and levels equalize a bit, but more importantly, it's still the exact same concept. You are introducing a degree of variance that can totally warp party balance, can damage or prevent character concepts, and is entirely out of the players hands. If rolling for levels is unacceptable, why is rolling for stats, which accomplishes the exact same thing, not?

Now, even then there are decent chances that at least one player will roll poorly. Most DMs hot-fix this by allowing people to reroll all their dice once, but that isn't a good way to do things by default. For that reason, I think an artificial floor needs to be added.I agree. I also think you should institute a ceiling, to prevent situations where someone winds up an uber-generalist and outperforms other experts in the party at their own schtick as a side effect thereof. And then I think we should give the below average rollers bonuses so that everyone winds up on a roughly equal starting position. And then we should probably let them shuffle their numbers around so they fit the stats into their concept better.

The most direct way to do this, and the one that I think I now prefer, is to roll 2d6+6 for each stat. It has a low floor, and nice average, an a relatively small amount of variance. This ends up giving everyone a slight boost overall, compared with point buy, but I rather like it.But I was under the impression that people were also wanting weaknesses to give the character more flavor or whatnot. Why is the floor so low to render that less likely to get those super-memorable int 4 or str 7 characters?


You ever play chess? I do. It's fun, sort of, in a very cerebral way. But if you play the same people in the same format over and over, the game gets a bit repetitive and dry. You know the other person's arsenal pretty well and they know yours. Sometimes you'll win, and sometimes you'll lose, but at some point you're not playing the game, you're playing the other person, which isn't nearly as fun. So you mix it up. You play speed chess. You play chess whilst inebriated. You play with some stupid arbitrary restriction (pawns can't take pawns)

You have to introduce random elements sometimes to make things interesting.This is a good idea. When you try to take a chess piece, you should assign a number that you need to beat to capture it, and give bonuses to pieces on the roll based on the type. But some pieces should probably be tough enough to take more than one attempt to capture, so maybe we should give them some points to represent their durability, and then have the attackers roll against that as well. That's a good way to introduce randomness, I think, and is certainly far better than randomly adding or removing pieces from one side or the other/

I don't think that variability in power is desirable. I think that variability of stats is desirable. I don't think it's desirable, for instance, to have one player with all 18s and one with all 6s. But if my first character has 18/16/15/12/8/6 and my second has 17/15/14/14/14/10, that's going to be fun, and lead to very different characters overall. One of them is a brash, powerfully built paladin who always charges ahead, the other is a prodigy who is very good at what he does, but really could have succeeded at any sphere of life.You'll notice that, among other things, these two characters have dramatically above-expected stats. And they'd probably be good at their jobs and last in play. But you're missing the broader point here: Variability in stats is, in fact, a good thing in a limited sense; every PC running on the elite array or having a line of 12s and 13s would be boring. But you're forgetting that stats are power. You cannot have variance in the functional value of people's stats without having an identical variance in power. So you want variance in stats but a similarity in power? I agree completely. That would be a good thing to have. But here
s the thing: we have something at accomplishes exactly that! It's called point buy, and accomplishing what we both seem to desire is its entire role.

For example, if I build two STR-based paladins, I'll build them very similarly in terms of stats. They might have different skills, different backgrounds, different weapon styles... but the stats throughout the entire game will be nearly identical at every level. That's boring.

"Just don't play a Str-based paladin!" I hear you shout. Well, sure, I might not. But my buddy might, and guess what, nearly the exact same stat spread, at every level. Boring. I play a str-based bladelock/fighter multiclass? Pretty much the same stat spread, albeit off a level.And you'll note whatever array you'd choose would be roughly similar to the rolls above because the rolls above are essentially the optimal array for a paladin, and significantly higher than PB to boot! You get to have your strength above average(And what 5e's awful PB system gives you), you get to have your charisma and constitution both sky-high, and you even have stats to spread around for fun.

But your strength-based paladins don't have to be nearly identical. 5e's systemic flaws do contribute to this(There are, in fact, a bunch of essentially dead levels and very little choice, especially with the ASI/feat split meaning you don't get to differentiate your two paladins until you've got your strength where it needs to be), but the only difference between what you can do with a paladin on PB(Or rather, for the purposes of this hypothetical, a sane PB), and the paladins you generated those arrays for is that the paladins you rolled will be more powerful because they have notably higher stats.

For example, during the years I ran 5e, I made the standing offer to players that if you don't like your rolls, and you don't want to point buy, you can instead finish writing up the PC and then donate it to me for use as an NPC along with five other NPCs rolled up using 3d6. (This is to prevent stat inflation and help players remember that a 15 is in fact an unusually high score.) Then you can roll a new PC.Except, within the context of the game, that's not really correct. The assumed array gives you one, you're likely to get at least one on any given rolls, and as was shown earlier in the thread, the math of the game assumes that you're jacking up your main stat as hard as you can, so if you don't start with a +3 in your main stat, you are at a notable disadvantage, and also have to give up actual abilities to compensate.

[Pex]

An alternate solution is to push the problem to the metagame layer and impose a cost on the *player* for rerolling.

For example, during the years I ran 5e, I made the standing offer to players that if you don't like your rolls, and you don't want to point buy, you can instead finish writing up the PC and then donate it to me for use as an NPC along with five other NPCs rolled up using 3d6. (This is to prevent stat inflation and help players remember that a 15 is in fact an unusually high score.) Then you can roll a new PC.

So far, no one has ever taken me up on that offer. I dunno, maybe they were afraid of what I would do with their "useless" PCs once they became NPCs. :)

(Players loved running into NPCs I had them create specifically as NPCs--they'd perk up when they ran into e.g. the Genasi cleric that smelled faintly of strawberries, and pay attention to him in a very special way because "I think that's Caligan!" or whatever his name was. But maybe it's different when the DM smiles evilly at the suggestion that low stat rolls make a PC "worthless." Or maybe they were all just fine with whatever stats they rolled in every campaign. I dunno.)

The NPC has one advantage the player's character doesn't. DM fiat. Doesn't matter where the 8 is. It will not affect the NPC the same way an 8 would affect a PC. The NPC is on camera that one time or when the DM decides. The PC is always on camera so will always be affected by the 8. One reason a player may not take up your offer is to deny you the satisfaction of saying "I told you so", especially if you're so resistant or askance of a 1st level character having a very good array with or without an 18 so you tease them with the offer when they don't like the less than very good array they have.

Edit: I know I invited the scarecrow in that last part.

[smcmike]

You ever play chess? I do. It's fun, sort of, in a very cerebral way. But if you play the same people in the same format over and over, the game gets a bit repetitive and dry. You know the other person's arsenal pretty well and they know yours. Sometimes you'll win, and sometimes you'll lose, but at some point you're not playing the game, you're playing the other person, which isn't nearly as fun. So you mix it up. You play speed chess. You play chess whilst inebriated. You play with some stupid arbitrary restriction (pawns can't take pawns)

You have to introduce random elements sometimes to make things interesting.


I have an app called Really Bad Chess that I play. Both sides are given random pieces, other than the king, in random positions, with variable power levels - at level 0 you will have multiple queens and the AI will have mostly pawns, with parity around level 60, and some really nasty boards above that.

It truly is bad chess - the AI is pretty awful, and you can often grind out a win, even from a disadvantageous position, simply by attacking. Watch out if the AI gets like 8 knights though - brutal.

Still, it scratches the white noise itch that some people don’t seem to feel. That really is the end of the question for me - I find rolling for stats more pleasing than point buy or standard array because the random element adds a spark of novelty.

[Pelle]

And I should have said I don't really care about variance personally, whereas the OP does. But I also don't care if players want to roll dice because they're hoping for scores above the average or because they say they like variance or randomness or whatever. As long as they're using the official system that is roughly balanced with standard array, and they stick with whatever they roll the first time, I'm happy.

My remarks you're chasing down and stomping all over were one of two suggestions directed at the OP for his personal consideration to see if they did what he wanted. I totally get jumping in on something someone posted part way through a thread and attacking it. After all, it's not like I haven't done that myself a bajillion times. But I'm finding myself suddenly wondering why I'm having to defend suggestions to the OP from a third party. It's undoubtably ironic for me to be on this side of it. :smallamused:

I think some of the conflict seems to come from difference use of terminology. Variance, and thereby standard deviation, in statistics describes how likely it is to get a result far from the mean value.

You seem to use "balance" to mean that the expected value/mean of the distribution is close to the point buy value, correct?

I would not call that balance. To me balance here is the difference in power level between the players. So everyone using the same point buy value means perfect balance. If rolling, with the standard 4d6b3, due to the high variance of the distribution, there is a high chance to get a large power level disparity (what is "high" is personal taste). Unbalance. If everyone can choose the same array after rolling, perfect balance again.



Sure. There are those who find the very limited randomness in the list of 65 arrays you presented patently insufficient though (they are all very samey), which is why we stick with rolling.

Yes, many players like to have more randomness than that, but often they also like to not have the possibility to get worse stats than the others. Those two preferences are mutually exclusive, however. Sure, if the people in your group don't care about the last point, no problem. People don't always recognize that they do, though.

[2D8HP]

The last time that I've rolled for stats in 5e, I got an 18 in INT, which I decided to make a High Elf Rogue.

I'd mostly played Champion Fighters in 5e at that time and another player got very upset that I wouldn't play a Wizard, but my looking at the rules confirmed that just I didn't have enough RL intelligence to handle all the options crunch and resource management required to effectively use the Wizard Class, the other player whining about my playing "sub-optimally has still left a bad taste, so I only roll for stats if I'm not allowed standard array or point buy.

Also, in my experience most players who first roll for stats whine so much afterwards that the DM's relent and let them do point buy anyway, which just seems like cheating to me.

As to all the alternative methods of character creation?

Just like starting above first level, or with extra equipment (especially magic items) I've found that to be a red flag for a short game that will likely be lamer than usual in my experience.

[ZorroGames]

Oddpoint from OD&D days. The first thing to change was the (now I find it was never intended) roll in order thing. Large wargamer group, 6 adult DMs, never asked the junior high DMs, turns out all thought it was that way, and all changed it as the first change with no communication with each other about it.

The 4D6 b3 came much later.

Maybe that is why I only build characters from point-buy in AL and never roll dice for abilities. YMMV and probably should.

[Mister_Squinty]

I love the way that 5e does point buy, since I first implemented it, have loved every second of it. It's very easy for first time players and is infuriating (in a good way) for players that come from other editions.

Personally i love making characters, and will always pick point buy since I love not having to depend on the dice to make the character I want to do. when rolling stats many times I have ended up dissapointed because of having characters having all stats above the average when I wanted to play a character with weaknesses or getting a character with weaknesses when I wanted to have a character more well rounded.

The only thing I would like is to have the option for other sets of stats for point buy. like 30, 32, 34 points? and some sets that allow stats above 15? Because, while am perfectly happy with the current restrictions as the default, having options is always good.

The only real shortcoming I have with point buy is that you cannot freely match race and class and start on the same base ability. For instance, you can't build a Dwarf Wizard with the same level 1 DC/to hit as a point buy High Elf/Half Elf/Human. While it's not game breaking, being behind the curve out of the gate is frustrating.

[Pelle]

Fun fact:
If doing 4d6b3 (reroll individual stats lower than 8), then the expected difference in equivalent point buy value between the best array and the worst array is about 14 in a party of 3, and about 20 in a party of 5.

Do what you want with the insight :)

10000 Monte Carlo simulations, assuming 3.5 point buy rules where it is possible to buy up to 18. Of course, if changing the randomization system, like rerolling the whole array if its value is below a certain treshold, the party difference can be lower.

[Mister_Squinty]

Fun fact:
If doing 4d6b3 (reroll individual stats lower than 8), then the expected difference in equivalent point buy value between the best array and the worst array is about 14 in a party of 3, and about 20 in a party of 5.

Do what you want with the insight :)

10000 Monte Carlo simulations, assuming 3.5 point buy rules where it is possible to buy up to 18. Of course, if changing the randomization system, like rerolling the whole array if its value is below a certain treshold, the party difference can be lower.

If you're rerolling stats under 8, why not do 2d6+6, which has a floor of 8? Or, if you want to bump the average, 3d6b2+6?

[Pelle]

If you're rerolling stats under 8, why not do 2d6+6, which has a floor of 8? Or, if you want to bump the average, 3d6b2+6?

No reason, you can do it a thousand different ways, but you need to choose something to do a calculation. Seems like a common enough method, but can easily be changed though. You will of course get a different distribution.

[strangebloke]

What I am saying is that a large-scale power difference is likely to be detrimental and damaging to enjoyment...

...Except it's not. One standard deviation above and you're going to be getting 16/15/14/12/11/10, whereas one standard deviation below is 13/12/11/10/9/8.

It's really not, especially as time goes on and levels equalize a bit, but more importantly, it's still the exact same concept. You are introducing a degree of variance that can totally warp party balance, can damage or prevent character concepts, and is entirely out of the players hands. If rolling for levels is unacceptable, why is rolling for stats, which accomplishes the exact same thing, not?

So, just so we're clear, your position is that its the degree of variance that's the problem, right? Because I agree with that. 4d6b3 is a bit too much variation for me, although it can be just fine for different games. Just so we're clear though, it isn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.

Your high end stat total: 78
Your low end stat total: 63
Mean stat total(4d6b3):73.5
Stat Total Std. Dev: 6.97

so more realistic values for 1 std. dev below/above would be:

High:16/15/15/13/11/10=80
Low: 14/13/12/11/9/8=67

That's probably enough of a gap to kill some character concepts, but not enough to mean that your low-roll character is completely useless, or even that he's particularly unfun to play. Something more equal to, or more extreme than one of those has a 16% chance (not 20%) chance of appearing in the wild. If I'm a player, that's maybe an acceptable risk, but if I'm a DM, it probably isn't. In a party of five people, the probability of both showing up is roughly 30%, which is way too high. You can floor this pretty easily, just saying "Everyone gets a free 15" or "Reroll if your stats are below 'x,'" but that's a bit convoluted IMO.


But I was under the impression that people were also wanting weaknesses to give the character more flavor or whatnot. Why is the floor so low to render that less likely to get those super-memorable int 4 or str 7 characters?
The nice thing about 2d6+6 is that it's moddable. I can easily make it 2d6 +4 or whatever if I'm doing a horror-themed campaign and I want the PCs to be a bit weaker than normal. Int 4 was never really desirable; 6-7 is low enough for most purposes.


This is a good idea. When you try to take a chess piece, you should assign a number that you need to beat to capture it, and give bonuses to pieces on the roll based on the type.
Completely missing the point. Character Creation is a minigame, one that can become stale. Rolling injects some life into that process. Some characters will be more powerful than others, but that's fine since gaming groups tend to stay together for a long time and everyone will roll awesome or bad stats eventually.


And you'll note whatever array you'd choose would be roughly similar to the rolls above because the rolls above are essentially the optimal array for a paladin, and significantly higher than PB to boot! You get to have your strength above average(And what 5e's awful PB system gives you), you get to have your charisma and constitution both sky-high, and you even have stats to spread around for fun.
We both agree that PB is a bit low for what we want to do. Quit bringing that up like its something I disagree with.

And 'whatever array I'd pick' would not look like that. Those aren't optimal point spreads.

But here's the crux, I think: You're making arguments against specific implementations of rolling, saying that it's 'too much' and 'leads to fewer player options,' which are all arguments that might be valid... for that specific implementation. But the thing is, you're trying to argue against rolling as a whole which is a way-too-broad argument to prove, particularly at tables that aren't your own. Higher point buy is perfectly valid. There are advantages in that it makes character creation deterministic, you know what you're getting. It's desirable in a game where people come up with 5-6 page backstories and are super invested in the character arc for their character

But that's not how everyone plays. Some people run very lethal games where characters get cycled in and out relatively frequently. In such a context, adding some white noise, perhaps a lot of white noise, into character creation, can be fun. "Remember that wimpy goblin Mark had that always ended up rolling super well?" is the stuff this kind of games lives off of.

Conversely consider a game that's 70% freeform roleplay and 30% combat. In such a context, balance is just less important overall, players just kinda wing it, and rolling stats is just fun with no real downside. Look at Critical Role for such an example. The point buy of their new character ranges from 33 to 58! Spoiler alert, one of the least effective characters has 49 point buy, and one of the most effective has 36, with the 58 and the 33 point buy characters both being somewhere in the middle.

Randomness is fun!

[smcmike]

If you're rerolling stats under 8, why not do 2d6+6, which has a floor of 8? Or, if you want to bump the average, 3d6b2+6?

Both of those methods will give you far fewer numbers at the bottom end of the range (8s and 9s). Rerolling below 8 preserves 8s and 9s.

[zinycor]

The only real shortcoming I have with point buy is that you cannot freely match race and class and start on the same base ability. For instance, you can't build a Dwarf Wizard with the same level 1 DC/to hit as a point buy High Elf/Half Elf/Human. While it's not game breaking, being behind the curve out of the gate is frustrating.

I have both played and GMed for dwarven wizards, and neither me or the other players felt that bad about it. After all, it felt really cool to be a wizard on medium armor who could attack with a batle axe.

Now, I never tried this while rolling for stats, maybe because of how "surprised" one can always get with the stats that one gets, I feel like non standard builds require more care and control than power.

But again, I really dislike random elements on character creation, so I might not be objective here.

[Mister_Squinty]

Both of those methods will give you far fewer numbers at the bottom end of the range (8s and 9s). Rerolling below 8 preserves 8s and 9s.

4d6b3 gives a 11.8% chance of an 8 or 9. 2d6+6 gives a 8.34% for a difference of 3.46%. Not a huge swing.

http://anydice.com/program/f2e1

[smcmike]

4d6b3 gives a 11.8% chance of an 8 or 9. 2d6+6 gives a 8.34% for a difference of 3.46%. Not a huge swing.

http://anydice.com/program/f2e1

We were discussing 4d6b3 with a floor of 8, which will give you slightly different values - for the purpose of this direct comparison, it will slightly boost the percentage of 8s and 9s. Regardless, I think the swing is pretty big - almost twice as many 8s.

[ZorroGames]

The only real shortcoming I have with point buy is that you cannot freely match race and class and start on the same base ability. For instance, you can't build a Dwarf Wizard with the same level 1 DC/to hit as a point buy High Elf/Half Elf/Human. While it's not game breaking, being behind the curve out of the gate is frustrating.

Assemble five random people. Base ability is wildly variable. And it is only frustrating to those who let it be so.

Character is more than comparative numbers.

[Pelle]

4d6b3 gives a 11.8% chance of an 8 or 9. 2d6+6 gives a 8.34% for a difference of 3.46%. Not a huge swing.

http://anydice.com/program/f2e1

They aren't that different. The 2d6+6 is symmetric, while the 4d6b3rr1-7 is skewed and trimmed at the tail. Doesn't really matter for my point anyways, which was the expected interparty power level disparity, which will be similar.

[Mister_Squinty]

We were discussing 4d6b3 with a floor of 8, which will give you slightly different values - for the purpose of this direct comparison, it will slightly boost the percentage of 8s and 9s. Regardless, I think the swing is pretty big - almost twice as many 8s.

Okay, you will get a 7 or fewer on 4d6b3 5.71% of the time. Rerolling those will give you an 8 or 9 an extra (5.71% of original rolls * the 11.8% chance to get an 8 or 9 on reroll) .67% of the time. So, adjusted total of getting an 8 or 9 on 4d6b3 with rerolls under 8 is 12.47%. 4.13% chance higher than 2d6+6.

[MonkeyIke]

I enjoy rolling more. I get to see interesting race/class combinations that I don't think are usually played in point buy games. Like Dragonborn Rogue, Tiefling Wizard, and Gnome Bard.

[MaxWilson]

In this case you are incorrect. We're not talking about combining bonuses, which is what the entry you're talking about and quoting says, each is triggered independently.

That entry is about spells with overlapping durations. Symbol of Death has a duration once triggered. It doesn't stack.


Even if you were correct, though, it genuinely doesn't matter because you can just stick a bunch of different Explosive runes which do the exact same job at a worse price.

Yes, Explosive Runes can stack because once triggered they're instantaneous.


You're missing the point. The bag is an extradimensional storage space. Within the bag is always within 10' of where the spell was cast if you cast it inside the bag.

(1) Bag of Holding is not extradimensional in 5E. You might be thinking of Heward's Handy Haversack.

(2) Nothing about Heward's Handy Haversack says the interior remains stationary when the exterior is moving.

(3) Are you seriously arguing that crossing an extradimensional interface constitutes remaining within 10' of the point of origin?

(4) Good luck climbing inside Heward's Handy Haversack to cast your spells.

This doesn't fly, sorry.


Eyebite, on the other hand, wins the action economy. It's a free SoD 1/round on anything you feel like per eyebite activated, plus you can have them cast whatever other spells you feel like.

It has a poor action economy. Reread the spell. Eyebite eats your concentration and your action on every round you use it. It basically lets you cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter or single-target Fear each round without expending a spell slot, but also without being able to re-try next round on any creature who succeeded on their save this round. It's fairly weak even if the fight lasts for a full ten rounds--typically you'd be better off just casting Hypnotic Pattern or Fear up-front. It's not absolute garbage to have a Hag cast for you but it's not a game-changer to cast by yourself.


Now here you're telling me that I am saying something I have explicitly said the opposite of in this thread. I would very much like you to not do this if we are to have a reasonable conversation.

What I am saying is that a large-scale power difference is likely to be detrimental and damaging to enjoyment, and most things to challenge the more powerful one, the weaker parties are entirely superfluous against. Now, there are ways around this. A wizard, for example, given enough money can set everyone up with a bag of buffs and walk around like it's 3.5 and the melee folks are going to feel pretty cool because they can fly, are much better at their job, and everyone wins. If you, however, just find whatever monster you need to kill for whatever reason and your herd of skeletons murders the heck out of it before they enter short range, the melee people are going to feel utterly superfluous because they were. The solution to dealing with a gross power imbalance is to leverage the power to elevate the weaker members. 5e in particular, unfortunately, doesn't have much in the way of options for this outside of glyph abuse because of the prevalence of concentration buffs, and it's a lot harder to ignore the fact that someone has over five times your HP, or have actual class features, or that their proficiency bonus is larger than their entire set of modifiers or everything else that they do to casually overpower them by existing because they have half the game's range over you.

That... sounds a lot like you're opining that large power differentials and fun can't co-exist. And yet you claim that you're saying the opposite, that large power differentials and fun can and do co-exist, and you've very pointedly asked me not to think you think the thing it seems like you're saying right here in the next paragraph. I don't know how to respond to that.

You also have some strange ideas about how a level 3 PC spends their time in-game when a level 13 PCs is around. Again, I suspect you probably play Combat As Sport because your comments only make sense in that context. But I run Combat As War.

RE: 15 being a rather high score:



Except, within the context of the game, that's not really correct. The assumed array gives you one, you're likely to get at least one on any given rolls, and as was shown earlier in the thread, the math of the game assumes that you're jacking up your main stat as hard as you can, so if you don't start with a +3 in your main stat, you are at a notable disadvantage, and also have to give up actual abilities to compensate.

It is absolutely correct within the context of the gameworld. 99% of the humans they meet will not have Str 15+. Orcs have Str 16 but that's because they're built like gorillas. Str 15 isn't just a number, it's just shy of Schwarzenegger-level strength levels.

The mentality you apparently have is exactly the one I'm trying to prevent my players from acquiring, by having them roll NPCs on 3d6.

I'm out of time for now.

[smcmike]

Okay, you will get a 7 or fewer on 4d6b3 5.71% of the time. Rerolling those will give you an 8 or 9 an extra (5.71% of original rolls * the 11.8% chance to get an 8 or 9 on reroll) .67% of the time. So, adjusted total of getting an 8 or 9 on 4d6b3 with rerolls under 8 is 12.47%. 4.13% chance higher than 2d6+6.

Which is to say that 8s show up almost twice as often, and 8s and 9s as a set show up almost 1.5 times as often.

[Raif]

I like 4d6d1 for creating characters. I recently saw a post from Matt Mercer stating he also uses that method, but that the total has to equal 72, which is just under the statistical mean of rolling. I liked that idea, still can get low numbers, but everyone ends up with equal points in stats.

[Mister_Squinty]

Which is to say that 8s show up almost twice as often, and 8s and 9s as a set show up almost 1.5 times as often.

Just about yes. Focusing specifically on 8's, 4d6b3 w. reroll gives a 5.05% chance of an 8 vs 2.78% for 2d6+6 (44.95% better chance).

I don't know how to make AnyDice factor in the "below 8 reroll", but here are the adjusted percentages:

8: 5.05% (+.27%)
9: 7.42% (+.40%)
10: 9.95% (+.54%)
11: 12.07% (+.65%)
12: 13.63% (+.74%)
13: 14.03% (+.76%)
14: 13.06% (+.71%)
15: 10.69% (+.58%)
16: 7.66% (+.41%)
17: 4.41% (+.24%)
18: 1.71% (+.09%)

Math is fun today!

[LordEntrails]

A lot of the discussion here is based on a premise I don't agree with. Or perhaps fails to consider an aspect of the game that I feel is critical.

Fun. And that Fun does not require optimization and perfect balance.

When I started playing D&D at age 7 or 8, we didn't optimize our characters. We didn't know enough to. We played heroes; like we had seen on TV, movies and in books. Sometimes we did ridiculous things like come up with ways to kill gods. We wanted out characters to be heroes, and they were. We had fun.

As a teen and in my early twenties, we optimized our characters. We figured out combinations that gave us an extra +.125 DPR, that gave us an extra +1AC. Or that gave us another way to cast an extra spell, or increase spell damage or DC.

Now in my 40s not only have I realized that no system will ever be mathematically perfect or balanced or simulate 'real-life' accurately, but, it just doesn't matter! Game systems don't need to, and should not be, perfect (however you choose to define perfection).

So, to answer the OP, is point buy or rolling better? The best system for any group, is the system that will cause the least friction in the group, minimize negative emotions, and maximize group fun. Period.

Any other answer puts one's ego before "Fun".

[Tanarii]

Players rolling one set of stats for them is more balanced instead of six players each rolling a set and picking the strongest one. Players rolling a set that has a mean around the standard array instead of one that caps it (on the bottom end) is .... okay that one might be a wash, honestly. I'd have to look at what it does to the statistical distribution. It might just result in a few more 8s than 9s on the bottom end.
(Edit: looks like it makes 8s a bit more likely than 9 or 10. So balanced enough.
http://anydice.com/program/f2c2 )




I don't know how to make AnyDice factor in the "below 8 reroll", but here are the adjusted percentages:
Already done.

[Mister_Squinty]

Already done.

That program raises any die roll of below 8 to an 8. Not quite the same as rerolling the set if it's below 8.

[Tanarii]

You also have some strange ideas about how a level 3 PC spends their time in-game when a level 13 PCs is around. Again, I suspect you probably play Combat As Sport because your comments only make sense in that context. But I run Combat As War.I run combat as war. But I split my campaign into Tier 1 and Teir 2 sessions, because the players were not having fun with mixed sessions. The power discrepancy between level 3 and level 6 characters is a factor of 3-1/2 across the adventuring day, and that was too much to make it enjoyable for the low level characters.

I can't even imagine a power differential of 11x, from 3rd to 11. Those aren't 2 PCs. That's a PC and her (rather weak and must be coddled) henchman.


That program raises any die roll of below 8 to an 8. Not quite the same as rerolling the set if it's below 8.
Ah. Maybe an If statement? I'll play around with it. It should be possible to re roll once fairly easily. Doing it repeatedly for anything lower than 8 will be harder.

[Pelle]

A lot of the discussion here is based on a premise I don't agree with. Or perhaps fails to consider an aspect of the game that I feel is critical.

Fun. And that Fun does not require optimization and perfect balance.

Personally, I don't care about the stats either, and greatly prefer player skills to matter more than character stats. I'm just observing that some players don't like to have worse stats than other players, yet still insist on rolling stats, which is inherently self-contradictory.

Statitistics are also fun, though!

[MaxWilson]

I run combat as war. But I split my campaign into Tier 1 and Teir 2 sessions, because the players were not having fun with mixed sessions. The power discrepancy between level 3 and level 6 characters is a factor of 3-1/2 across the adventuring day, and that was too much to make it enjoyable for the low level characters.

I can't even imagine a power differential of 11x, from 3rd to 11. Those aren't 2 PCs. That's a PC and her (rather weak and must be coddled) henchman.

In practice it's more like a x4 power differential (11/3 = just under 4), and it's not a power differential which persists long, since a 3rd level PC under those conditions gains levels pretty steadily (to me as a DM it seemed like practically no time at all before they hit 5th-8th level). For the specific scenario I'm remembering where there was a level 3 and a level 13 PC onscreen simultaneously, they were returning from their space colony when they noticed a neogi deathspider. Rather than running from it, they intercepted, rammed and boarded it! There were dozens of umber hulks and neogi on the ship, and when the umber hulks started pouring out, 1d4 per round, I honestly thought they were all doing to die, and they lost a CR 9 NPC (Grey Slaad who was playing at being a paladin to "slay evil", without having a good idea what evil actually was) who was a little bit too reckless in his pursuit. Evard's Black Tentacles and good use of terrain went a long way towards saving their collective bacon (killing enough umber hulks to demoralize them into withdrawing to regroup, which BTW is when the Grey Slaad charged and got butchered into hamburger). Long story short, they didn't capture the neogi ship (the neogi would rather have detonated the helm than let them capture the ship, although I didn't tell the players that) but they wound up actually extorting a ransom from the neogi to be allowed to keep their ship (and then since they'd given control of their own ship to an NPC, I pulled a string to have him get them out of there with the ransom money instead of hanging around to try to take the whole ship as some PCs wanted them to do, since I didn't really have the heart to TPK them after their improbable victory). I don't remember exactly what the level 3 NPC did during that action, but I can easily think of things that level 3 PCs could have done to contribute in that action: Spike Growth or Web would have been invaluable, for example.

Other events that happened around the same time include negotiating a treaty with space elves which resulted in breaking the Interdict for their planet, running against each other for the mayorship/sheriff's office of their newly-founded space colony (I improvised rules for how each PC could sway more NPC voters to their side), and collecting roc eggs out of some misguided desire to train rocs as mounts. All PCs were involved, and in several of those activities, mechanical bonuses from being higher-level mattered very little.

My game is combat-light but when combat does happen it is designed to be an emotionally significant event. Qualitative capabilities and player choices also tend to be more important than mechanical bonuses. E.g. the 5th level paladin who got caught out in open terrain by two mounted hobgoblins while travelling alone (officially an "Easy" fight by DMG standards)... she would have died because she was only carrying swords instead of a longbow, but she decided to play dead when hit by a hobgoblin arrow, which (due to the fact that she'd already heard the hobgoblins chatting with each other about which one of them would claim her armor) she expected to bait them close enough to her to kill them. Long story short, it basically worked and she survived. But I was 100% prepared to pull the trigger and kill her with those two hobgoblins if that's what would have logically happened in-world.

[ZorroGames]

Personally, I don't care about the stats either, and greatly prefer player skills to matter more than character stats. I'm just observing that some players don't like to have worse stats than other players, yet still insist on rolling stats, which is inherently self-contradictory.

Statitistics are also fun, though!

We humans are full of self-contradictory beliefs.

Yes, prefer fun games and satisfying roleplay with the rollplay.

[Pelle]

We humans are full of self-contradictory beliefs.


That's why I enjoy coming up with randomization procedures which make my players happy either way :)

[Tanarii]

In practice it's more like a x4 power differential (11/3 = just under 4), and it's not a power differential which persists long, since a 3rd level PC under those conditions gains levels pretty steadily (to me as a DM it seemed like practically no time at all before they hit 5th-8th level).Was this 5e? Because in 5e, in theory a 3rd level character and a 11th level character have a power difference of 9x across an adventuring day and for any given battle. This sounds right to me, given that I've found the predicted differences between tier 1 and 2, and the adventuring XP table as a whole, to be reasonable accurate. (Caveat: my game is combat heavy, and the encounter and adventuring day tables seem to be predicated on that.)

And yes, a 3rd level character is going to be power leveled at an amazing rate by level 11s. That's the reason I as the DM didn't want to mix Tier 1s and 2s. That, and Tier 1s start to become a bit too fragile.

[Pex]

I enjoy rolling more. I get to see interesting race/class combinations that I don't think are usually played in point buy games. Like Dragonborn Rogue, Tiefling Wizard, and Gnome Bard.

This.

In Point Buy,

If you're a dragonborn you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a half-elf you're a bard or warlock. (Interesting I have not seen half-elf sorcerers.)
If you're a halfling you're a rogue.
If you're a wood-elf you're a druid or monk.
If you're a high elf you're a rogue or wizard.
If you're a tiefling you're a warlock.
If you're a mountain dwarf you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a hill dwarf you're a cleric.

I have my own bias. I'm variant human. Not all the time but most of the time. I like the feat and extra skill, a lot. As with human versatility, though, I'm any class except rogue and ranger due to my incapability of playing those classes. I don't have the mindset to do those classes justice.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

This.

In Point Buy,

If you're a dragonborn you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a half-elf you're a bard or warlock. (Interesting I have not seen half-elf sorcerers.)
If you're a halfling you're a rogue.
If you're a wood-elf you're a druid or monk.
If you're a high elf you're a rogue or wizard.
If you're a tiefling you're a warlock.
If you're a mountain dwarf you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a hill dwarf you're a cleric.

I have my own bias. I'm variant human. Not all the time but most of the time. I like the feat and extra skill, a lot. As with human versatility, though, I'm any class except rogue and ranger due to my incapability of playing those classes. I don't have the mindset to do those classes justice.

I think this is generally more to do with 5E than with rolling or point buy. Whether the table uses rolling or PB, I think most players are going to take the race with the most synergy with the class they're interested in.

[Tanarii]

In Point Buy,
My AL experiences say you are both wrong. And that's with a fair amount of 4e and 3e vets who understood (although didn't necessarily prioritize) mechanical optimization. IMC, my standard array experiences (which also has a single 15) agree that you're both wrong. Players are perfectly willing to start with a 15 in their primary ability score, for the character they want.

Although a Dragonborn Rogue is kinda funky. I'm more used to seeing Half-Orc or Mountain Dwarf. :smallamused:

And I don't know why Tieflings wouldn't be wizards, if the concern is starting with a 16.

Also Gnome Bards should be squished for playing to their negative stereotypes. Gnome Ranger, or even Barbarian, is where it's at. Showing how badass gnomes are supposed to be.

[MaxWilson]

Was this 5e? Because in 5e, in theory a 3rd level character and a 11th level character have a power difference of 9x across an adventuring day and for any given battle. This sounds right to me, given that I've found the predicted differences between tier 1 and 2, and the adventuring XP table as a whole, to be reasonable accurate. (Caveat: my game is combat heavy, and the encounter and adventuring day tables seem to be predicated on that.)

And yes, a 3rd level character is going to be power leveled at an amazing rate by level 11s. That's the reason I as the DM didn't want to mix Tier 1s and 2s. That, and Tier 1s start to become a bit too fragile.

Yes, 5E.

The HP differential between a 3rd and 11th level character is on the order of x4; the spell point differential is x4.83; the concentration differential is nil; the mobility differential is usually nil; the differential in strength of opportunity attacks will vary between nil and x3ish at most.

A low-level PC can toss down a Spike Growth or Web in a critical chokepoint in a key battle, or an Enlarge to enhance grappling. Or they can simply charge into melee to Dodge and threaten opportunity attacks to pin an enemy in place. Consulting kobold.club, I find that a random Medium battle for 11th level PCs (not that I compute the difficulty rating until after the battle, mind you) could be an elephant, an orc war chief, and two winter wolves. A 3rd level Sentinel fighter, for example, even with low-ish stats like Str 14 Con 12, could contribute meaningfully to that battle just by getting up in the elephant's face and Dodging, keeping the elephant out of the fight until everyone else has time to focus fire it. He'll get hit one round in five on average, and may need about 12 points of healing from another PC after the battle, but that shouldn't be a problem. He's definitely carrying his share of the conflict, and note that that one fight gets him 900 XP, putting him at 1800 XP. One more fight like that will get him to 2700 XP, which is 4th level.

Advancement through dangerous combat, in 5E, is extremely fast.

[Selene Sparks]

So, just so we're clear, your position is that its the degree of variance that's the problem, right?Not exactly. My problem is that stats are power, so rolling for stats is, as I've talked about previously, essentially the same thing as rolling for level, which is, in my view, not acceptable.

In a cooperative game, people should be starting out on the same level.

Because I agree with that. 4d6b3 is a bit too much variation for me, although it can be just fine for different games. Just so we're clear though, it isn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.Except it really is. You've acknowledged that even a single standard deviation below can kill otherwise viable character concepts, so all you're doing is implementing a borderline Traveller-esque way for a concept to die in creation where another walks out better than anyone else can hope to be.

That's probably enough of a gap to kill some character concepts, but not enough to mean that your low-roll character is completely useless, or even that he's particularly unfun to play. Something more equal to, or more extreme than one of those has a 16% chance (not 20%) chance of appearing in the wild.Yes, you can make a character who is better than everyone else in the game without high stats, but the thing is, as the power level of your campaign goes down, the more stats are going to be needed to make them functional, to meet arbitrary minimums, and so on. And, yes, one can have fun with a weak character in a group, but that's ignoring the fact that having dead weight is problematic in a cooperative game.

As for your other statement, you are in, in fact, correct. IRL, the people I have to explain math or probability to tend to only really respond to round numbers, so rounding has become something of a bad habit for casual conversation.

If I'm a player, that's maybe an acceptable risk, but if I'm a DM, it probably isn't. In a party of five people, the probability of both showing up is roughly 30%, which is way too high. You can floor this pretty easily, just saying "Everyone gets a free 15" or "Reroll if your stats are below 'x,'" but that's a bit convoluted IMO.First, why is it an acceptable risk if you're a player? I can't speak for everyone else, but in my opinion the single worst thing that can happen in a game is for someone else to not be having fun, because RPGs are cooperative, and I'm gaming with my friends.

But, more to the point, if you're acknowledging that a system is unacceptable to a person concerned with party balance, why are you still advocating for a system with the exact same flaws,

The nice thing about 2d6+6 is that it's moddable. I can easily make it 2d6 +4 or whatever if I'm doing a horror-themed campaign and I want the PCs to be a bit weaker than normal. Int 4 was never really desirable; 6-7 is low enough for most purposes.Except you're still, fundamentally, engaging in the exact same behavior with the same exact problems.

Completely missing the point. Character Creation is a minigame, one that can become stale. Rolling injects some life into that process. Some characters will be more powerful than others, but that's fine since gaming groups tend to stay together for a long time and everyone will roll awesome or bad stats eventually.Character creation in 5e, takes about two minutes. The mere act of rolling stats and writing them down probably takes longer than character creation itself.

Plus, while rolling may "inject some life" into the two minute minigame, it does this to the detriment of the multi-month game. Furthermore, arbitrarily stripping resources away during such a minigame fundamentally undermines such a minigame. Honestly, if you want an engaging, creative, variable and interesting character creation minigame for D&D, play 3.5.

We both agree that PB is a bit low for what we want to do. Quit bringing that up like its something I disagree with.It's worth pointing out that is, in fact, not what I am saying. 5e's weird, passive-aggressive PB is, in fact, too low for what I want, or rather it's too low for the incentive structures in the system, but PB is, itself, not too low, and, in fact, how low PB totals can be is a feature, and an important one at that.

And 'whatever array I'd pick' would not look like that. Those aren't optimal point spreads.True. In all both arrays, you'd rather have higher primary numbers and lower secondaries, and you'd want to even out those odd numbers, but they're pretty much in line with what I'd be expecting in a 40+ point buy.

And such a paladin would probably be badass, but, again, that's because you're throwing 40+ points at them.

But here's the crux, I think: You're making arguments against specific implementations of rolling, saying that it's 'too much' and 'leads to fewer player options,' which are all arguments that might be valid... for that specific implementation. But the thing is, you're trying to argue against rolling as a whole which is a way-too-broad argument to prove, particularly at tables that aren't your own. Higher point buy is perfectly valid. There are advantages in that it makes character creation deterministic, you know what you're getting. It's desirable in a game where people come up with 5-6 page backstories and are super invested in the character arc for their characterI think the bolded is worth looking at, because you're applying something I've not actually said to what I'm arguing in ways that strike me as weird. Especially that, it's worth noting, the (formerly) standard reroll condition put your PB average to 32, and I don't think I've ever had a PB game with stats as high as you'd expect from whatever the roll scheme is.

But this does tie into why rolling is bad: Everyone always wants something specific. You probably want your character to not suck, you may feel like playing a face this campaign, or so on, and rolling is only an impediment to this, because randomness doesn't help you achieve specifics.

But that's not how everyone plays. Some people run very lethal games where characters get cycled in and out relatively frequently. In such a context, adding some white noise, perhaps a lot of white noise, into character creation, can be fun. "Remember that wimpy goblin Mark had that always ended up rolling super well?" is the stuff this kind of games lives off of.Except in games where characters get cycled out super fast(Like, say, Tomb of Horrors), I can build an array that's useful in my head faster than I can roll dice. And if you're running a highly lethal game, you're probably going to want more control over your character, so you can not die within five minutes.

Conversely consider a game that's 70% freeform roleplay and 30% combat. In such a context, balance is just less important overall, players just kinda wing it, and rolling stats is just fun with no real downside. Look at Critical Role for such an example. The point buy of their new character ranges from 33 to 58! Spoiler alert, one of the least effective characters has 49 point buy, and one of the most effective has 36, with the 58 and the 33 point buy characters both being somewhere in the middle.*Sigh* And I'm sure they all legitimately "rolled" for those stats, too.

Disregarding the specifics of Critical Role(Because that tangent would never end and probably be somewhat unpleasant), this again ties into what I've been saying about specific results. You can have higher PB equivalents outperform lower PB equivalents(See someone with a bunch of 16s, as opposed to a 16, an 18, and the rest are average). And imagine, for a moment, you're playing a character that rolled actually average in a group with range you're describing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd probably get annoyed when people's untrained modifiers are better than my entire RNG for trained skills, for example(Although this ties into a different problem not entirely relevant here).

Discounting that, though, in a game following the hypothetical split you're posing, combat is even more important, to the exclusion of near everything else. If you're just freeforming or whatever, you can get by with a lot, because you aren't going to randomly drop dead in freeforming, but in combat an Intellect Devourer or Azer or whatever will murder the heck out of you.

Randomness is fun!Okay, then why don't you roll your stats straight down, without shuffling them around? That would give you a lot more randomness than just a different set of stats. Or how about rolling race and class? Even better, why not roll every level to see what class you take?

That would be highly random. If randomness is fun, that should be more fun than a heavily weighted roll.


That entry is about spells with overlapping durations. Symbol of Death has a duration once triggered. It doesn't stack.Except you are incorrect. This isn't a bonus like the Bless example, so there's simply nothing to actually stack.

Yes, Explosive Runes can stack because once triggered they're instantaneous.Which is why, as I said, your interpretation, while incorrect, is ultimately irrelevant.

(1) Bag of Holding is not extradimensional in 5E. You might be thinking of Heward's Handy Haversack.Actually, if you read the text of the Haversack and the Portable Hole, it explicitly refers to bags of holding as generating an extradimensional space.

(2) Nothing about Heward's Handy Haversack says the interior remains stationary when the exterior is moving.It does by the very words it uses to describe it.

(3) Are you seriously arguing that crossing an extradimensional interface constitutes remaining within 10' of the point of origin?I am arguing that if you can take 10' of rope and take one end to the present location and the other to the origin, it's within 10 feet.

(4) Good luck climbing inside Heward's Handy Haversack to cast your spells.I don't need to, as established. First of all, a bag of holding works, second, the "point of origin" in where the spell is placed, as it was used every other time the phrase was mentioned, and third, even if you were right on both those, you could use freaking reduce person during downtime to fill your bag of buff.

This doesn't fly, sorry.Of course it doesn't fly; fly only targets creatures, which your extradimensional bag is not. That said, the buff list most certainly contains fly, but that's beside the point.

It has a poor action economy. Reread the spell. Eyebite eats your concentration and your action on every round you use it. It basically lets you cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter or single-target Fear each round without expending a spell slot, but also without being able to re-try next round on any creature who succeeded on their save this round. It's fairly weak even if the fight lasts for a full ten rounds--typically you'd be better off just casting Hypnotic Pattern or Fear up-front. It's not absolute garbage to have a Hag cast for you but it's not a game-changer to cast by yourself.Alas, you are correct, I suppose my third edition was showing there.

That said, seriously, three SoDs(Sleep is the big one here if you're using any BFC)

That... sounds a lot like you're opining that large power differentials and fun can't co-exist. And yet you claim that you're saying the opposite, that large power differentials and fun can and do co-exist, and you've very pointedly asked me not to think you think the thing it seems like you're saying right here in the next paragraph. I don't know how to respond to that.If you are confused, I recommend you read what I'm writing, rather than deciding what I'm saying and going off that. The nice thing about internet forums is that there is a nice record of what's been said, so you can go back and check if you get mixed up.

You also have some strange ideas about how a level 3 PC spends their time in-game when a level 13 PCs is around. Again, I suspect you probably play Combat As Sport because your comments only make sense in that context. But I run Combat As War.No. You are absolutely coddling any level 3 PC if they are in combat with level 13 appropriate enemies and don't get one-shotted by one of the available AoEs because they are 10 levels below what's expected.

Unless this is a roundabout way of you saying that your level 3 glorified hirelings aren't in the combat whenever the actual PCs are fighting. in which case you are proving my point. You are structuring everything such that the characters that have no business being involved in any given situation aren't, by the power of DM fiat. Unless you're actually saying something else, in which case you should say so explicitly.

RE: 15 being a rather high score:



It is absolutely correct within the context of the gameworld. 99% of the humans they meet will not have Str 15+. Orcs have Str 16 but that's because they're built like gorillas. Str 15 isn't just a number, it's just shy of Schwarzenegger-level strength levels.Actually, it's pretty simple to show that approximately 1.5% of people built on NPC rolls will have strength 15+. Of course, using that as a metric is actually pretty bad because it gives us some especially silly due to the expected spread, but it's still worth pointing out.

The mentality you apparently have is exactly the one I'm trying to prevent my players from acquiring, by having them roll NPCs on 3d6.

I'm out of time for now.So you consider understanding the math of the game to be a detrimental feature for players to have?

In practice it's more like a x4 power differential (11/3 = just under 4), and it's not a power differential which persists long, since a 3rd level PC under those conditions gains levels pretty steadily (to me as a DM it seemed like practically no time at all before they hit 5th-8th level). For the specific scenario I'm remembering where there was a level 3 and a level 13 PC onscreen simultaneously, they were returning from their space colony when they noticed a neogi deathspider. Rather than running from it, they intercepted, rammed and boarded it! There were dozens of umber hulks and neogi on the ship, and when the umber hulks started pouring out, 1d4 per round, I honestly thought they were all doing to die, and they lost a CR 9 NPC (Grey Slaad who was playing at being a paladin to "slay evil", without having a good idea what evil actually was) who was a little bit too reckless in his pursuit. Evard's Black Tentacles and good use of terrain went a long way towards saving their collective bacon (killing enough umber hulks to demoralize them into withdrawing to regroup, which BTW is when the Grey Slaad charged and got butchered into hamburger). Long story short, they didn't capture the neogi ship (the neogi would rather have detonated the helm than let them capture the ship, although I didn't tell the players that) but they wound up actually extorting a ransom from the neogi to be allowed to keep their ship (and then since they'd given control of their own ship to an NPC, I pulled a string to have him get them out of there with the ransom money instead of hanging around to try to take the whole ship as some PCs wanted them to do, since I didn't really have the heart to TPK them after their improbable victory). I don't remember exactly what the level 3 NPC did during that action, but I can easily think of things that level 3 PCs could have done to contribute in that action: Spike Growth or Web would have been invaluable, for example.So, again, the only actions you're actually talking about are done by level 7+ people, even against what are CR5 enemies(which a level 3 PC should actually be able to contribute to).

And, no, I'm not accepting Spike Growth as a useful action considering it can be expected to only do 1/19 of the Umber Hulk's hit points before they elect to use their alternative move speeds like any creature with an intelligence above animal.

Other events that happened around the same time include negotiating a treaty with space elves which resulted in breaking the Interdict for their planet, running against each other for the mayorship/sheriff's office of their newly-founded space colony (I improvised rules for how each PC could sway more NPC voters to their side), and collecting roc eggs out of some misguided desire to train rocs as mounts. All PCs were involved, and in several of those activities, mechanical bonuses from being higher-level mattered very little.So, you're essentially making up rules, not using other rules, and then you're still saying that, when one character's proficiency bonus alone is going to be at or above another character's entire RNG, "everyone gets to contribute."

Again, this isn't "everyone getting to contribute," this is using a bunch of houserules to pretend that one character isn't a glorified hireling, instead of making the character not a glorified hireling.

I think this is generally more to do with 5E than with rolling or point buy. Whether the table uses rolling or PB, I think most players are going to take the race with the most synergy with the class they're interested in.This. There are so few bonuses floating about, you need the extra bonus from a good race, plus the fact that I've never had a player that doesn't want actual feats.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

This. There are so few bonuses floating about, you need the extra bonus from a good race, plus the fact that I've never had a player that doesn't want actual feats.

Feats are options, and options are fun.

[MaxWilson]

Except you are incorrect. This isn't a bonus like the Bless example, so there's simply nothing to actually stack.
Which is why, as I said, your interpretation, while incorrect, is ultimately irrelevant.
Actually, if you read the text of the Haversack and the Portable Hole, it explicitly refers to bags of holding as generating an extradimensional space.
It does by the very words it uses to describe it.
I am arguing that if you can take 10' of rope and take one end to the present location and the other to the origin, it's within 10 feet.

It's not about bonuses specifically: you can't stack detrimental effects like Bane or Symbol of Death while their durations overlap. The text is clear on this: multiple identical spells whose durations overlap do not stack.

As for your Bag of Symbols, just no. Sorry, munchkins: Symbols and Glyphs of Warding are not mobile in 5E. When you take your Symbol-etched object out of the bag of holding, it is already far more than 10' from wherever you originally cast the Symbol, so the Symbol is gone.


So, again, the only actions you're actually talking about are done by level 7+ people, even against what are CR5 enemies(which a level 3 PC should actually be able to contribute to).

??? Spike Growth and Web are 2nd level.

You need to re-read the Umber Hulk stat entry BTW. It can't burrow through ship hulls to avoid Web/Spike Growth, and doing so would be stupid anyway because then it would just fall.


So, you're essentially making up rules, not using other rules, and then you're still saying that, when one character's proficiency bonus alone is going to be at or above another character's entire RNG, "everyone gets to contribute."

Wait, you're whining that I improvised rules for swaying whom an NPC votes for in an town election? As opposed to using the non-existent DMG rules for electioneering? LOL, nice try. Persuasion attempt failed. Take 1d6 San damage and lose speaking privileges until your next long rest.

[strangebloke]

Selene, I'm not going to reply to that wall, because I think you're actively making your point less clear the more you say.

1. I do think that 4d6b3 is too much variance for my purposes. I don't think it's as bad as you've made it out to be.

2. If you come to the table with a 10 page character sheet and a 1-20 build plan, you shouldn't roll. If you have a vague idea of a character you wanna play, rolling probably won't mess you up too much. I wanna play an 'arcane knight' for my next character. I'd have to roll really poorly to rule that one out, and 'gish' is generally a pretty demanding field.

3. Would you ever be ok with rolling for loot? A deck of many things? A character coming into a huge amount of money (He took over a merchant ship) that he doesn't have to share for some reason? All of these things are more or less random and can hugely upset the balance of power in a group.

4. Having good/bad stats is a small part of character power, overall. My (horribly unoptomized) goliath cleric has 7 CHA and his only stat above 14 is his WIS. Nonetheless, I'm the powerhouse of the party, well ahead of the fighter who rolled two 18's.

5. Character power is not a determination of fun. I've been the guy with good stats, I've been the guy with weak stats. I played a fighter to level 11 in 3.5, for crying out loud! By sixth level the druid's animal companion could kick my butt and I *still* had a good time. More fun, in fact, than I would have had as a wizard. I by no means am holding that specific example up as something desirable, but a little variance in power is totally fine, and can even make for a good story. DND is not mathematically balanced and never will be.


Okay, then why don't you roll your stats straight down, without shuffling them around? That would give you a lot more randomness than just a different set of stats. Or how about rolling race and class? Even better, why not roll every level to see what class you take?

That would be highly random. If randomness is fun, that should be more fun than a heavily weighted roll.

Finally, this convinces me that you haven't been reading my posts to any depth. Randomness is fun to a point. That point will be different depending on who's playing and how you're feeling at the time. I think 4d6b3 is too random for what I want, but that point buy is too deterministic for what I want.

I could just as easily ask why you roll for anything in your game, since it's relatively probable that one player will roll massively better on average than other players. Why don't you have everything be passive checks? Why use a d20 and not 3d6?

I have done "4d6b3 in order before, rolling race and class" actually. It's hilariously fun for a one shot, with everyone bumbling about a dungeon with these exceedingly derpy characters, trying to make the most of class features that they can barely use. An elven cleric with 6 CON, a bard with 20 STR and 12 CHA who mostly just smacks people... can't you understand that I'm not talking theory here? I'm genuinely talking about what makes me have fun in a game.

[Selene Sparks]

Feats are options, and options are fun.Which is why the ASI/feat split is a complete travesty.

??? Spike Growth and Web are 2nd level.Yes, and you said you had no idea if the mook had, in fact, used them.

You need to re-read the Umber Hulk stat entry BTW. It can't burrow through ship hulls to avoid Web/Spike Growth, and doing so would be stupid anyway because then it would just fall.I believe you need to reread the umber hulk entry. The "burrowing" limitation only applies to digging through stone, but it is distinct from the burrow speed.

So, again, you have a situation where someone who will die if an umber hulk breathes on them wrong, who you can't say for sure that they did anything or not, but they might have maybe been able to cast a spell that won't meaningfully impact even a single umber hulk and can be bypassed by them using a natural movement mode

Wait, you're whining that I improvised rules for swaying who an NPC votes for in an town election? As opposed to using the non-existent DMG rules for electioneering? LOL, nice try. Persuasion attempt failed. Take d6 San damage and lose speaking privileges until your next long rest.And we're descending into insults now? Wonderful.

I don't care that you're fabricating a system out of nothing, because the 5e writers never bothered to actually write a skills section, but if this is done on skills, a charisma-focused starting character's total modifier on the RNG for a skill they are proficient in, is the same as the proficiency bonus. So, assuming you are even having the remotest tangential connection to the rules, the mook is worthless. Especially true if the character is a druid like you're implying, since druids don't care about charisma.

Selene, I'm not going to reply to that wall, because I think you're actively making your point less clear the more you say.

1. I do think that 4d6b3 is too much variance for my purposes. I don't think it's as bad as you've made it out to be. Except the math says otherwise, as we've already gone over, with a solid chance of one character literally having the same statline as Farmer Joe of the local Peasantville millitia while the other can, with minimal investment, be better than the first character at their own schtick as an afterthought. And any randomness that can generate this kind of disparity is a problem, because that disparity being a thing at all is a problem.

2. If you come to the table with a 10 page character sheet and a 1-20 build plan, you shouldn't roll. If you have a vague idea of a character you wanna play, rolling probably won't mess you up too much. I wanna play an 'arcane knight' for my next character. I'd have to roll really poorly to rule that one out, and 'gish' is generally a pretty demanding field.You're again framing a false dichotomy here, and really, you are trying to say that a notably MAD fighter subtype doesn't need reliable stats?

Say you want an arcane knight and I'm feeling like playing a war cleric. I roll an 18 and several 14 or 15+ rolls, where you wind up with a high of 14. In this case, my character will simply be better than yours at absolutely everything, and that is a problem.

3. Would you ever be ok with rolling for loot? A deck of many things? A character coming into a huge amount of money (He took over a merchant ship) that he doesn't have to share for some reason? All of these things are more or less random and can hugely upset the balance of power in a group. For loot? So long as it maps to the expected WBL, it's fine, because wealth is power and it can be converted into whatever is needed. A deck of many things? Of course not, because that thing destroys campaigns. And an immature player? We talk to the player, because we're all friends playing a cooperative game, and come to whatever resolution is needed for the game to progress.

4. Having good/bad stats is a small part of character power, overall. My (horribly unoptomized) goliath cleric has 7 CHA and his only stat above 14 is his WIS. Nonetheless, I'm the powerhouse of the party, well ahead of the fighter who rolled two 18's.No, stats are only a small set of power for the classes that are already better than everyone else. 5e is the casteriest edition to ever caster, and(while I am curious as to the specifics), if you outperform your fighter with 2 18s, imagine if the fighter rolled poorly instead, and how bad they'd be.

It's also worth noting that, in your example, you mention a 7 in a dump stat, and your best stat is the only stat that really matters because casters can get by with one stat because they're already better than everyone else, but even then, I'd be willing to bet you'd be having problems if your high was a 14 in wisdom and your other stats proportionally lower. You could still pretend to be a wizard, but all the non-TGM options would be much harder, because you'd have a lower base power.

Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. If the difference between characters is coming entirely from class, why is rolling desirable? You can draw the differences from class, specialty, and feat choices, and not have the gross imbalance that comes from absurd stat variance.

5. Character power is not a determination of fun. I've been the guy with good stats, I've been the guy with weak stats. I played a fighter to level 11 in 3.5, for crying out loud! By sixth level the druid's animal companion could kick my butt and I *still* had a good time. More fun, in fact, than I would have had as a wizard. I by no means am holding that specific example up as something desirable, but a little variance in power is totally fine, and can even make for a good story. DND is not mathematically balanced and never will be.Power is not a direct determination of fun. The game is a social activity among friends. But not being able to contribute is not fun. In 3.5, the druid can play nice with everyone else because they've got good BFC and great buffs, and so can make the fighter a relevant party despite the fighter being, well, a fighter. The last 3.5 character I build was an absurdly optimized wizard in a party with a bunch of not terribly impressive melee types, and nobody had a problem because my role was buffs, and so everyone else got to shine. And unlike 3.5, outside of glyph abuse, 5e does not have that kind of option. So when your god-caster is overpowering everyone else, the melee guys and gals are going to feel pretty awful.

And you're making another error; just because perfect balance is impossible doesn't mean that balance is not a desirable trait, nor does it mean that balance is not something you should aspire to.

Finally, this convinces me that you haven't been reading my posts to any depth. Randomness is fun to a point. That point will be different depending on who's playing and how you're feeling at the time. I think 4d6b3 is too random for what I want, but that point buy is too deterministic for what I want.You've yet to address the question of why. And a good number of the solutions offered to deal with it will wind up with stats so much higher than point buy it doesn't matter, because you're essentially removing randomness anyways but pretending you're not.

I have done "4d6b3 in order before, rolling race and class" actually. It's hilariously fun for a one shot, with everyone bumbling about a dungeon with these exceedingly derpy characters, trying to make the most of class features that they can barely use. An elven cleric with 6 CON, a bard with 20 STR and 12 CHA who mostly just smacks people... can't you understand that I'm not talking theory here? I'm genuinely talking about what makes me have fun in a game.So if it's clearly an option you say you enjoy, why shouldn't it be the default? Randomness is Fun! after all. Same with levels.

You're making contradictory arguments.

[MaxWilson]

I believe you need to reread the umber hulk entry. The "burrowing" limitation only applies to digging through stone, but it is distinct from the burrow speed.

Le sigh.


A monster that has a burrowing speed can use that speed to move through sand, earth, mud, or ice. A monster can’t burrow through solid rock unless it has a special trait that allows it to do so.

Ship hulls are neither sand, earth, mud or ice; and even if it did burrow through them, it would just fall. Burrowing to avoid Web/Spike Growth/Evard's Black Tentacles would be both stupid and futile in the situation they were in.

[strangebloke]

You've yet to address the question of why. And a good number of the solutions offered to deal with it will wind up with stats so much higher than point buy it doesn't matter, because you're essentially removing randomness anyways but pretending you're not.

It's fun because it freaking is, dummy. That's a basic premise. I enjoy videos of cats as well, do I have to justify that to you? I guess if I had to articulate it I would say that it plays into the 'overcoming a challenge' part of the game. Tons of Roguelike RPGs are built on the idea of being inherently unfair and random. In a serious dnd game, I like some randomness, but not infinite amount so I started this discussion to raise the question. "What level of variance do you like?"



So if it's clearly an option you say you enjoy, why shouldn't it be the default? Randomness is Fun! after all. Same with levels.

You're making contradictory arguments.

It shouldn't be default because while it is sometimes appropriate, it is not always appropriate. Different levels of unfairness or variability are appropriate at different times.

I'm arguing that some times rolling is fun.

You're arguing, what, that it never is? Are you really standing by that?

[Selene Sparks]

It's fun because it freaking is, dummy.*Sigh*

Well, I suppose this was inevitable. At least the insults are downright tame by internet standards.

That aside, and, again, the rules that the other parties are misunderstanding, this discussion is pointless. The opposing arguments are based on the assumption that the inevitable balance issues can be resolved by the GM fluffing things, houseruling things, and otherwise essentially removing the weaker characters from the mechanics such that the weakness is irrelevant via fiat. This is an extension of the Oberoni fallacy, which wasn't convincing fifteen years ago and hasn't improved with age. As long as it is the basis of the other argument, I do not believe I can convince anyone, and I most certainly cannot be convinced by those lines specifically.

As such, I'm going to bow out here before this escalates into what I was expecting once civility was discarded.

[Friv]

There was a mode a while back that someone statted out which allowed for random stats that were still pretty even between groups.

The idea was that you rolled three times, instead of six. Each of your first three rolls were 2d6+6, to give you three numbers between 8 and 18 with an average result of 13.

Your other three stats were each equal to (26 - result of the first roll), giving you three stats between 8 and 18. If you rolled really poorly, the second set of stats would be very high. If you rolled well, the second set would be much lower. If you rolled close to average, your other stats would also be close to average.

[smcmike]

*Sigh*

Well, I suppose this was inevitable. At least the insults are downright tame by internet standards.

That aside, and, again, the rules that the other parties are misunderstanding, this discussion is pointless. The opposing arguments are based on the assumption that the inevitable balance issues can be resolved by the GM fluffing things, houseruling things, and otherwise essentially removing the weaker characters from the mechanics such that the weakness is irrelevant via fiat. This is an extension of the Oberoni fallacy, which wasn't convincing fifteen years ago and hasn't improved with age. As long as it is the basis of the other argument, I do not believe I can convince anyone, and I most certainly cannot be convinced by those lines specifically.

As such, I'm going to bow out here before this escalates into what I was expecting once civility was discarded.

Lol. You’ve got very strong views about how the game should be played. When someone says “this is fun for me” and you offer a ten-point argument about why they are wrong, a gentle “dummy” is appropriate (and far less annoying than citing “fallacies”). This is especially true when you drag in additional arguments about what’s wrong with 5e, why every class but wizards suck, and why your particular wizard exploit is the baseline by which the game should be measured. Almost none of what you’ve posted has been familiar to my experience playing the game.

[Emay Ecks]

There was a mode a while back that someone statted out which allowed for random stats that were still pretty even between groups.

The idea was that you rolled three times, instead of six. Each of your first three rolls were 2d6+6, to give you three numbers between 8 and 18 with an average result of 13.

Your other three stats were each equal to (26 - result of the first roll), giving you three stats between 8 and 18. If you rolled really poorly, the second set of stats would be very high. If you rolled well, the second set would be much lower. If you rolled close to average, your other stats would also be close to average.

Lol, I love this. I could definitely get behind rolling for stats if they were rolled like so, and I think I might make that the standard option for rolling stats in my games. Thank you!

[MaxWilson]

The opposing arguments are based on the assumption that the inevitable balance issues can be resolved by the GM fluffing things, houseruling things, and otherwise essentially removing the weaker characters from the mechanics such that the weakness is irrelevant via fiat.

Dude, the DM doesn't have to do anything. The PHB is chock-full of qualitative advantages which PCs can acquire without depending on stat rolls. The Mobile feat is in the PHB. Conjure Animals is in the PHB. The Dodge maneuver is in the PHB, and heavy armor and shields (which make Dodge maximally effective) are in the PHB. Caltrops are in the PHB. Mounted combat rules are in the PHB. Ranged weapons are in the PHB, and the MM makes most monsters ineffective at ranges beyond 30'. Et cetera, et cetera. The players bear the brunt of the responsibility for staying alive and being effective, instead of giving up in despair because they rolled a 12 as their highest stat and are now "worthless," in your words.

It's not the DM's job to play your game for you. He just runs the world. Fortunately 5E gives you lots of tools to make it easy to survive and prosper in that world.

[Pelle]

There was a mode a while back that someone statted out which allowed for random stats that were still pretty even between groups.

The idea was that you rolled three times, instead of six. Each of your first three rolls were 2d6+6, to give you three numbers between 8 and 18 with an average result of 13.

Your other three stats were each equal to (26 - result of the first roll), giving you three stats between 8 and 18. If you rolled really poorly, the second set of stats would be very high. If you rolled well, the second set would be much lower. If you rolled close to average, your other stats would also be close to average.

Wasn't this method already suggested more or less by Pex? Seems like an ok way to have both randomness and equal power level. Some people like the possibility of larger difference in power levels though, as evidenced by this thread.

For my next long term campaign I would like to try the method of roll 24d6, count # of 1s and add 8, that is one score, count # of 2s and add 8 that's another and so on. This will always give an average of 12. Upper limit is 32 though, unlikely, but can easily be solved with redistribution. Can also be tweaked if different power level is wanted.

[Citan]

Hi all...

Sooo. I read Selene's first posts, I refrained myself from replying immediately, then I read the whole thread only to see that (s)he pursued some *extremely* debatable opinions. So here goes, then I'll back to OP's ask for feedback. ;)



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.

For reference (plus I completely agree on this)...


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'll try as hard as I can to stay open-minded and avoid prejudgements, but that whole paragraph, I have to say, gives a strong impression that you don't really know 5e.
Disclaimer: ANY caster could decide to dump his stat and still have means to be a very valuable asset to the party. You have a +0 bonus? Well, what a big deal... Or not. Every caster has many upcastable spells that don't rely on casting stats and are game changers. And at higher level, while obviously 14 is lesser than 19, it's still a good enough DC if you know (preferably not through metagaming) how to target a weak save for a given creature.



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'm sorry to say this as bluntly, but I have no other words: this is utter nonsense. There are many things other classes do much much better than Wizard.

Skills for example.
Take a Knowledge Cleric: he'll be leaps beyond Wizard as far as skill goes between Channel Divinity and Enhance Ability, at the very least until level 9 and only because Xanathar's added the Skill Empowerement spell.
Take a Rogue: Wizard will never match him beyond level 11 in skills because Expertise pairs with Reliable Talent.
Take a Bard: he's better than Wizard from level 1 to level 20, juggling as needed between Enhance Ability and Expertise.
At level 5, your Wizard is... Well, basically useless in skills he's not proficient into.

Take resilience
Real life-savers like Contingency or Clone come awfully late. Until then, you are a very squishy 1d6 character that has to rely on Shield / Mirror Image / Blur / Greater Invisibility to avoid many hits, and can still be ended because of a big AOE (unless still slot for Absorb Elements) or a few criticals. You have no resilience against restraining effects so you could easily get trapped. You have no resilience in constitution so you could be quickly be taken care of by even simple creatures like Ghouls.
Half of the other casters will laugh at you, and let's not open the book on Barbarians, Paladins or Monks...
At level 5, let's be nice and suppose you managed to crank a 16 CON however way you found: your Wizard will have somewhere around 34-40 HP most probably.
Just a bear could put you in dire state in a round, or even down you if lucky.
Of course, to each his own definition, but in mine, being "a better combatant" includes "not falling down at first sight just because I'm out of fuel".

Take adventuring utility
Druids get everything a party would ever need, from level 1 to level 20, without even having to struggle about whether to learn a particular spell or not, contrarily to Wizard.
Bard could specialize as a caretaker and poach all the best spells from Druid, Cleric and Wizard all at once.
Wizard gets some of the best ones, but unless you get lucky on loot, you'll have to learn them like a Bard, even if you can change prepared spells afterwards.


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.
Again, it's incredibly reductive of what 5e can be about. Besides the fact that even 14 DC can be enough or 19 not be (we are still subjects to the randomness of roll), making the choice of the "right" save at least as important as having a high stat (some would argue more important actually) and the fact that other people can help enhance the chance of spell affecting the creature...

Between Conjuration spells, non-save battlefields effects (like Plant Growth), automatic damage spells (like Spike Growth, Cloud of Daggers, Heat Metal -when cast on worn metal armor-), and spells that indirectly affect decision and need close-by checks to be seen through (many illusions), you could decide to never cast a single heal or buff spell and still be effective (even if technically some buffs change the tide of an encounter as surely -or better- than several high-level offensive spells). Even if of course some classes would have a much easier way doing this than others *cough* Druid *cough*.

In fact, I invite you to go check the threads that pop sometimes here about "let's make crazy multiclasses" (which mean 13 in all stats), you'll see that even those can still be helpful in many ways.

I'm glad for you that you love the Wizard, but that really shouldn't blind you to see it for what it is: just a very good class among many others.

Also, sorry to break an illusion here, but taken from a theorycraft point of view, Druid will fare better than Wizard at most levels in many aspects (in short: scouting/spying/healing/adventuring/shaping battlefield), at least when putting archetype benefits aside. You severely underestimate not only the spell list, but also Wild Shape's true potential.
Of course, in a campaign where your DM allows all players to develop their own agency in long term, highest level Wizards are pretty much unkillable and could develop a great worldwide power too.


So I might be starting a new campaign soon, and I decided to take a closer look at rolling vs. point buy. I kind of tend to favor rolling, just because you end up with goofier characters, but I *don't* like it when some players roll really well and others roll super poorly, so I wanted to figure out what the likelihood of that happening was.

So in summary, you tend to get higher end results by rolling (>50% chance of getting better than a 15) and you get 'better' stats overall. Even someone who rolls very well probably won't disrupt the game that much, since the more important stats are the higher ones, and those tend to have a much narrower deviation. (rolling an 18 for your highest stat is much better than rolling a 12 for your lowest.) A character who rolls poorly is going to have a very ineffective character overall, and will probably be more disruptive to a game than someone who rolls high particularly if they want to play a certain character type.

I'm currently deciding between '1 guaranteed 15, roll for the rest' and 'use 4d6 drop lowest or point buy, whichever is better.'
Your system is interesting, but I still wouldn't use it.
I give my players an expanded point-buy system (32 points, starting 6/16 allowed).
If they wanted to roll, I'd use the normal system, just putting a bottom at 6, maybe making some balance if really someone got reaaaally ****ty rolls (like nothing above 10) and does not feel ready to make do with it. :)

[opaopajr]

I like rolling. Very cereal box surprise with a side of school monitor. "You get what you get and you don't complain." :smallcool:

That said point buy and standard array are OK, too.

I also like randomizing Point Buy and Stat Array nowadays:

Stat Array random = Choose either State Array or Ability List to be first, then roll 1d6 and pair up the latter with the former's order. Rerolls & Process of Elimination as you go down the line. (i.e. obviously roll d6 for "high or low" for the final two values, rather than keep rerolling filled slots, etc.)

Point Buy random = Use Ability Order or d6 them, then roll 1d8-1 to determine how many points you spend on that stat. Again, use Process of Elimination for logical results to spend all 27 points. (i.e. if first three rolls end up spending zero points -- e.g. STR 8, DEX 8, CON 8 -- then remaining Abilities are all 15s.)

This way I don't become as bored.

I also like to choose race and class ahead of time because it makes things even more challenging. It goes against even casual optimization and forces me to deal with circumstance. Given how hard it is to build a poor PC in 5e, it's good to explore new strategies.

[strangebloke]

Wasn't this method already suggested more or less by Pex? Seems like an ok way to have both randomness and equal power level. Some people like the possibility of larger difference in power levels though, as evidenced by this thread.

For my next long term campaign I would like to try the method of roll 24d6, count # of 1s and add 8, that is one score, count # of 2s and add 8 that's another and so on. This will always give an average of 12. Upper limit is 32 though, unlikely, but can easily be solved with redistribution. Can also be tweaked if different power level is wanted.

That is one crazy method!

I'm not sure how the math here works out, but it's certainly balanced, since regardless of what you get you'll have 72 total stats.

RE: The Roll 3 with (2d6+6), and get three with 26-(the first three) method is intriguing, and it actually seems like it gives a really clean (if high) spread.

[Selene Sparks]

Lol. You’ve got very strong views about how the game should be played. When someone says “this is fun for me” and you offer a ten-point argument about why they are wrong, a gentle “dummy” is appropriate (and far less annoying than citing “fallacies”). This is especially true when you drag in additional arguments about what’s wrong with 5e, why every class but wizards suck, and why your particular wizard exploit is the baseline by which the game should be measured. Almost none of what you’ve posted has been familiar to my experience playing the game.You know, I have really vivid memories of a discussion about four years ago with someone over 3.5 He was utterly convinced that wizards were super weak and fighters were where it was at when it came to real power. This was an absolute stratification of power at every level, this guy argued, because wizards had no hit points, could only throw out a handful of fireballs a day, and couldn't wear armor, while he had some whirlwind attack combo that could supposedly clear encounters by doing an average of about 20 damage in reach by level 10, so fighters were strong, but wizards essentially had to be coddled to survive.

This was, of course, utterly silly. Notable in this discussion was that it was trivially apparent that multiple CR-appropriate encounters could literally one-round the entire party at once. But he was apparently enjoying his group's playstyle. Does this make his assertions over the structure underlying the system correct, or was he getting by on dumb luck, the DM secretly fluffing things for him? And would the correct response from him to actual statements regarding the system as a whole involve talking about the GM somehow isn't coddling them by using only the gentlest level-4 or lower encounters while saying that those who disagreed with him were stupid?

Where I'm going with this is that people enjoying something has nothing to do with the underlying structure of the game or other objective truths. One can most certainly enjoy a flawed game, but doing so doesn't mean one should deliberately remain blind to its flaws. I play 5e regularly, but that doesn't mean the underlying system of 5e isn't built on faulty premises, nor that I must be unaware of them to play the game.

And, final note here: Insults, which essentially only ever escalate in any given conversation, are the bane of communication. Once they're flowing, any further conversation is going to grind to a halt, because the other party has moved the matter of discussion from the subject at hand to the person, and even if you've continued the argument without there, the argument will never leave. And that is, of course, disregarding things like basic respect for other people that should be present in any discussion. And it is in no way comparable to pointing out an argument that was debunked nearly twenty years ago.

Hi all...

Sooo. I read Selene's first posts, I refrained myself from replying immediately, then I read the whole thread only to see that (s)he pursued some *extremely* debatable opinions. So here goes, then I'll back to OP's ask for feedback. ;)Well, at least you actually read it. That's honestly a step up here, and why I'm even here at all, honestly.

I'll try as hard as I can to stay open-minded and avoid prejudgements, but that whole paragraph, I have to say, gives a strong impression that you don't really know 5e.On the contrary, I've spent a good deal of time on the system, and more importantly a good deal of time deliberately dissecting the system to understand how it functions. So if I've been unclear, please tell me and I'll walk you through it, with as much detail as you need.

Disclaimer: ANY caster could decide to dump his stat and still have means to be a very valuable asset to the party. You have a +0 bonus? Well, what a big deal... Or not. Every caster has many upcastable spells that don't rely on casting stats and are game changers. And at higher level, while obviously 14 is lesser than 19, it's still a good enough DC if you know (preferably not through metagaming) how to target a weak save for a given creature.You'll note that I actually specifically referenced this earlier; a wizard is still so much better than everyone else, they can function without those, as can people trying to imitate being a wizard. But if you're not specifically being better than everything else in the game combined, you need your stats to function because the progression of monsters is based on that.

I'm sorry to say this as bluntly, but I have no other words: this is utter nonsense. There are many things other classes do much much better than Wizard.

Skills for example.
Take a Knowledge Cleric: he'll be leaps beyond Wizard as far as skill goes between Channel Divinity and Enhance Ability, at the very least until level 9 and only because Xanathar's added the Skill Empowerement spell.
Take a Rogue: Wizard will never match him beyond level 11 in skills because Expertise pairs with Reliable Talent.
Take a Bard: he's better than Wizard from level 1 to level 20, juggling as needed between Enhance Ability and Expertise.
At level 5, your Wizard is... Well, basically useless in skills he's not proficient into.I'll start here. First, let's get one thing out of the way: As written, the skill system is a bit of a joke. But in the context thereof, outside of a rogue(who is the only one in question that is seriously better on this one specific but poorly-defined and thus impossible to objectively measure).

The underlying problem here is that bounded accuracy applies to skills, with only rogues really getting off the RNG. There is essentially no practical difference between expert-level tasks and basic level tasks, because untrained peasants can still not infrequently outperform trained specialists at their field. This means that having an action economy advantage, being able to throw more dice at it, means you are better. So at level one, wizards have a free +3.125 on every skill they make because they have a familiar that can aid them. This is a larger bonus than what you get at expertise for a decent amount of time. After that, you have animate dead, which is why wizards are better at everything else, because they can simply throw more dice at any problem. This trend culminates in Simulacrum, where a wizard can get any number of rolls on their notably larger bonuses by spending gold, so they have more chances to roll high, which is what really matters because in 5e skills, outside of rogues, the RNG is more important than your actual skill numbers.

As one final note, I think it's a bit funny you're using Skill Empowerment as an example when wizards have it too. I mean, they have better things to spend their slots on, but they could glyph it during downtime and even share it with friends, so they've got an edge there.

Take resilience
Real life-savers like Contingency or Clone come awfully late. Until then, you are a very squishy 1d6 character that has to rely on Shield / Mirror Image / Blur / Greater Invisibility to avoid many hits, and can still be ended because of a big AOE (unless still slot for Absorb Elements) or a few criticals. You have no resilience against restraining effects so you could easily get trapped. You have no resilience in constitution so you could be quickly be taken care of by even simple creatures like Ghouls.
Half of the other casters will laugh at you, and let's not open the book on Barbarians, Paladins or Monks...
At level 5, let's be nice and suppose you managed to crank a 16 CON however way you found: your Wizard will have somewhere around 34-40 HP most probably.
Just a bear could put you in dire state in a round, or even down you if lucky.
Of course, to each his own definition, but in mine, being "a better combatant" includes "not falling down at first sight just because I'm out of fuel".First thing, once a wizard has hit level 5, they can one round every CR-appropriate monster without effort. As for durability, it's worth noting that a wizard really only cares about intelligence, so they can jack up their Con easier than a gish, monk, or anything like that. Especially that, as a SAD class, they are more likely to get feats earlier than non-SAD classes. And the difference between hit dice is seriously minimal. This gets worse if you're talking about an abjurer(which you shouldn't, but it's still an option), because they have a decent rechargeable HP buffer.

As I've discussed previously, casters can spend money for invincibility. A Glyph of Tiny Hut means you have an on demand shield that is absolutely invincible. Casters can also fly. Look through the Monster Manual for me. Notice how few monsters can do a single thing to a peasant under the effect of Fly with a longbow. And it's worth noting that if you're not exploiting this kind of thing, there are numerous monsters in the Monster Manual that flatly kill people anyways, wizard or not. And, related to that and frankly most importantly when discussing vulnerability, wizards are the only class that get to cast Magic Jar, and so are the only class that is actually immune to the local Peasantville militia.

Take adventuring utility
Druids get everything a party would ever need, from level 1 to level 20, without even having to struggle about whether to learn a particular spell or not, contrarily to Wizard.
Bard could specialize as a caretaker and poach all the best spells from Druid, Cleric and Wizard all at once.
Wizard gets some of the best ones, but unless you get lucky on loot, you'll have to learn them like a Bard, even if you can change prepared spells afterwards.So, again, druids can pretend to be wizards, bards can spend permanent resources to be worse wizards, and wizards are still better than everyone else and the most efficient party option is to give them the majority of the party loot. You're making my arguments for me here, especially when a bard doing what you're describing means the bard is not taking the actually powerful spells.

Again, it's incredibly reductive of what 5e can be about. Besides the fact that even 14 DC can be enough or 19 not be (we are still subjects to the randomness of roll), making the choice of the "right" save at least as important as having a high stat (some would argue more important actually) and the fact that other people can help enhance the chance of spell affecting the creature...Again, this argument fails on bounded accuracy. You need to scrabble for those +1s to have your DCs scale to be level appropriate. And this is missing the more important point, which is if you compare a caster doing what you're describing with awful stats and great stats, which is likely to happen, the one with poor stats is just going to suck.

Between Conjuration spells, non-save battlefields effects (like Plant Growth), automatic damage spells (like Spike Growth, Cloud of Daggers, Heat Metal -when cast on worn metal armor-), and spells that indirectly affect decision and need close-by checks to be seen through (many illusions), you could decide to never cast a single heal or buff spell and still be effective (even if technically some buffs change the tide of an encounter as surely -or better- than several high-level offensive spells). Even if of course some classes would have a much easier way doing this than others *cough* Druid *cough*.Damage in 5e is bad. Objectively, it is every bit the awful strategy it was in 3.5. I know there's a strain of "common wisdom" that says otherwise, but it's simple to check HP totals against projected damage output by level, and note that no damage spell is even a fiftieth as good as contagion or forcecage or other spells that actually kill the enemy.

Illusions are so variable by group I don't think they can be meaningfully gotten into(although if they are, again, wizards are better than everyone else). Healing is every bit as bad as damage, and buffing is a decent option, ruined by the fact that having essentially every buff be concentration was a bad idea.

In fact, I invite you to go check the threads that pop sometimes here about "let's make crazy multiclasses" (which mean 13 in all stats), you'll see that even those can still be helpful in many ways.Except, in the ones I've seen, they really aren't.

I'm glad for you that you love the Wizard, but that really shouldn't blind you to see it for what it is: just a very good class among many others.
Also, sorry to break an illusion here, but taken from a theorycraft point of view, Druid will fare better than Wizard at most levels in many aspects (in short: scouting/spying/healing/adventuring/shaping battlefield), at least when putting archetype benefits aside. You severely underestimate not only the spell list, but also Wild Shape's true potential.I'm sorry, but you're objectively wrong and here's why: Animate dead is better than every other class that doesn't get it combined. Give them longbows, and a handful can kill almost anything in the entire game. Take a hundred and you can kill a ancient red dragon. And that's not getting into glyph of warding. It gets even worse when you take simulacrum into account, so you have even better minions that don't time out. To the extent that scouting is even a thing, flight renders wizards just as good, but wizards can also trapfind better via a horde of skeletons. Spying, again to the extent it's a thing, detect thoughts, invisibility, advantage on any hide checks you make say you're not entirely right. Healing is a joke, and wizards win that realm by being able to one round anything not containing one of around three monsters(for which explosive runes can do the job), and BFC/shaping, wizards have wall of force and force cage, plus tiny hut, and more importantly by just killing things.

Of course, in a campaign where your DM allows all players to develop their own agency in long term, highest level Wizards are pretty much unkillable and could develop a great worldwide power too.The highest level wizards actually just win because they have an arbitrary number of actions and are just flatly better, and if your game gets to level 17, I genuinely cannot conceive of anything that can even remotely challenge a wizard save another level 17+ wizard, and even then they'd be functionally identical.

[Pelle]

That is one crazy method!

I'm not sure how the math here works out, but it's certainly balanced, since regardless of what you get you'll have 72 total stats.


It is relatively clumped around the average, with a high chance to get values around 12 with maybe one or two outliers. I think this is because the rolls for the difference stats are not independent, but correlated. I like the look of them though. It might be a good idea to also allow choosing the standard array instead, which are more graded.

[Zalabim]

Choices are fun, but giving extra feats doesn't automatically lead to extra choices. One of the hallmarks of a choice is that you don't get what you didn't choose. There have to be more options than chances to select them. If everyone gets everything, no one's makes any choices.

Also, a new tack I've been trying out on feats is that they don't make your fighter more unique from other fighters, but rather they make your fighter more like every other character of every other class that takes the same feat. If your character is defined by the feat first that makes it less unique. A player makes many choices, mechanical and otherwise, about a character before they choose their first ASI or feat. If there's a shortage of individuality, it's on the player's end.

Let's see about dissecting one single wall of text. Just because I feel like I have to do something, and I have literally hours to waste.


You know, I have really vivid memories of a discussion about four years ago with someone over 3.5 He was utterly convinced that wizards were super weak and fighters were where it was at when it came to real power. This was an absolute stratification of power at every level, this guy argued, because wizards had no hit points, could only throw out a handful of fireballs a day, and couldn't wear armor, while he had some whirlwind attack combo that could supposedly clear encounters by doing an average of about 20 damage in reach by level 10, so fighters were strong, but wizards essentially had to be coddled to survive.

This was, of course, utterly silly. Notable in this discussion was that it was trivially apparent that multiple CR-appropriate encounters could literally one-round the entire party at once. But he was apparently enjoying his group's playstyle. Does this make his assertions over the structure underlying the system correct, or was he getting by on dumb luck, the DM secretly fluffing things for him? And would the correct response from him to actual statements regarding the system as a whole involve talking about the GM somehow isn't coddling them by using only the gentlest level-4 or lower encounters while saying that those who disagreed with him were stupid?
Right now, with what you've said of how 5E works, you sound like that guy.


On the contrary, I've spent a good deal of time on the system, and more importantly a good deal of time deliberately dissecting the system to understand how it functions. So if I've been unclear, please tell me and I'll walk you through it, with as much detail as you need.
If you actually understand the system, you've utterly failed to demonstrate that. Also, less detail is probably better. Start small. Establish some credit before you dive off into another multi-page rant.

I'll start here. First, let's get one thing out of the way: As written, the skill system is a bit of a joke. But in the context thereof, outside of a rogue(who is the only one in question that is seriously better on this one specific but poorly-defined and thus impossible to objectively measure).

The underlying problem here is that bounded accuracy applies to skills, with only rogues really getting off the RNG. There is essentially no practical difference between expert-level tasks and basic level tasks, because untrained peasants can still not infrequently outperform trained specialists at their field. This means that having an action economy advantage, being able to throw more dice at it, means you are better. So at level one, wizards have a free +3.125 on every skill they make because they have a familiar that can aid them. This is a larger bonus than what you get at expertise for a decent amount of time. After that, you have animate dead, which is why wizards are better at everything else, because they can simply throw more dice at any problem. This trend culminates in Simulacrum, where a wizard can get any number of rolls on their notably larger bonuses by spending gold, so they have more chances to roll high, which is what really matters because in 5e skills, outside of rogues, the RNG is more important than your actual skill numbers.
This is all a whole bunch of nonsense. There's a variety of situations that call for an ability check, and in most of them wizards have no particular advantage. There's no ability check that can be solved by 10 skeletons that can't already be solved by a normal adventuring party, and plenty of ability check situations that can be solved by a normal party but not by a wizard, skeleton, or familiar. Familiars can't help with everything, and for those situations where they can help they may be better used helping someone better suited for the task in the first place. A wizard can only have one simulacrum. Wish can break that, but wish can break literally anything if your DM lets it, and your DM really shouldn't let it.

As one final note, I think it's a bit funny you're using Skill Empowerment as an example when wizards have it too. I mean, they have better things to spend their slots on, but they could glyph it during downtime and even share it with friends, so they've got an edge there.
The funny thing here is that Citan was giving Skill Empowerment as the wizard's only way of competing, not as an example of anything else.

First thing, once a wizard has hit level 5, they can one round every CR-appropriate monster without effort.
[Citation needed]

As for durability, it's worth noting that a wizard really only cares about intelligence, so they can jack up their Con easier than a gish, monk, or anything like that. Especially that, as a SAD class, they are more likely to get feats earlier than non-SAD classes. And the difference between hit dice is seriously minimal. This gets worse if you're talking about an abjurer(which you shouldn't, but it's still an option), because they have a decent rechargeable HP buffer.
The wizard's primary ability is Intelligence. They can still benefit from Dexterity for AC and saves. Being easy to hit makes ranged weapons very dangerous to you. Constitution is for HP and saves. Having low HP makes effects that deal damage without a save or half damage on a save very dangerous to you. Wisdom is for more saving throws as well as commonly useful ability checks. Failed wisdom saves can result in lost turns, and poor wisdom checks opens you up to being surprised and betrayed more easily, which would be more lost turns.

As I've discussed previously, casters can spend money for invincibility. A Glyph of Tiny Hut means you have an on demand shield that is absolutely invincible. Casters can also fly. Look through the Monster Manual for me. Notice how few monsters can do a single thing to a peasant under the effect of Fly with a longbow. And it's worth noting that if you're not exploiting this kind of thing, there are numerous monsters in the Monster Manual that flatly kill people anyways, wizard or not. And, related to that and frankly most importantly when discussing vulnerability, wizards are the only class that get to cast Magic Jar, and so are the only class that is actually immune to the local Peasantville militia.
If your biggest fears are the local peasantville militia, you're playing a very limited game. And as you've been told before, you can't move a Glyph of Warding more than 10' from where it's cast. While Magic Jar's workings are mysterious, it clearly adds more ways to instantly kill yourself.

Damage in 5e is bad. Objectively, it is every bit the awful strategy it was in 3.5. I know there's a strain of "common wisdom" that says otherwise, but it's simple to check HP totals against projected damage output by level, and note that no damage spell is even a fiftieth as good as contagion or forcecage or other spells that actually kill the enemy.
Contagion is really bad. Forcecage has very limited uses per day and only actually kills an enemy in combination with another spell to deal persistent damage and only if you can trap that enemy in the cage with the other spell. The only other spells that actually kill the enemy instead of dealing damage like everyone else in the game are Flesh to Stone, which is as bad as Contagion, and Banishment on extraplanar foes, which is a great CC spell already. It's still better to bypass and avoid enemies in the first place, and other characters do that far better than a wizard with an army of skeletons.

Damage is, if anything, distinctly worse against HP pools than in 3.5, but save or die effects are all but completely removed so it looks better in comparison. The whole system is at a lower power ceiling.


I'm sorry, but you're objectively wrong and here's why: Animate dead is better than every other class that doesn't get it combined. Give them longbows, and a handful can kill almost anything in the entire game. Take a hundred and you can kill a ancient red dragon.
On an infinite flat plain, maybe. On an adventure it's a lot more chancy.

And that's not getting into glyph of warding. It gets even worse when you take simulacrum into account, so you have even better minions that don't time out. To the extent that scouting is even a thing, flight renders wizards just as good, but wizards can also trapfind better via a horde of skeletons. Spying, again to the extent it's a thing, detect thoughts, invisibility, advantage on any hide checks you make say you're not entirely right. Healing is a joke, and wizards win that realm by being able to one round anything not containing one of around three monsters(for which explosive runes can do the job), and BFC/shaping, wizards have wall of force and force cage, plus tiny hut, and more importantly by just killing things.
Scouting is very much a thing, and flight doesn't make you good at it. Throwing expendable creatures at traps is often a way to deal with them, or at least expose them, but it's not the way to deal with all of them, and not the best way to deal with some of them. Spying, much like scouting, is a thing, and wizards can make some nice contributions there but can't do it alone. Verbal components are noisy, no one's helping you hide, and when you still have to make that ability check, having a good modifier makes a difference, whether that's from expertise, higher dexterity, or pass without trace.

The highest level wizards actually just win because they have an arbitrary number of actions and are just flatly better, and if your game gets to level 17, I genuinely cannot conceive of anything that can even remotely challenge a wizard save another level 17+ wizard, and even then they'd be functionally identical.
The rules of the game have changed. I suggest you read them before you marry the wizard.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Can all the castery castering please be taken to another thread?

[Corneel]

A purely theoretical thought experiment for determining scores (so not used in play):

You get 500 points.
Each time you raise an ability you pay points equivalent to the score to which you raise it.
Eg. if you raise a score from 8 to 9 you pay 9 points.

Total points needed for each score are simple to calculate: (Score x (Score+1))/2
E.g. to raise a score from 0 to 12 you need (12 x 13)/2 points or 72 points.

Points must be used until no score can be raised anymore, left over points could be used to buy goodies.

For comparison, the standard array for 5E, [15,14,13,12,10,8], would cost 485 points and with this system you could raise any of those scores, except 15, with one point.

Possible arrays with this system are (before racial adjustment)

14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (500 pts) - average 12.33
15, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (500 pts) - average 12.17
16, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8 (500 pts) - avarage 12.17
18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8 (500 pts) - average 12.00
17, 17, 11, 10, 9, 7 (500 pts) - average 11.83 (good one to use for human)
18, 16, 10, 10, 10, 7 (500 pts) - average 11.83

Overall it means that if you have fairly balanced ability scores, you will have an higher average score. To acquire a high score in a specific ability you'll have to accept a slightly lower average.

Adjustment of system possible especially concerning the number of points available.

[smcmike]

And, final note here: Insults, which essentially only ever escalate in any given conversation, are the bane of communication. Once they're flowing, any further conversation is going to grind to a halt, because the other party has moved the matter of discussion from the subject at hand to the person, and even if you've continued the argument without there, the argument will never leave. And that is, of course, disregarding things like basic respect for other people that should be present in any discussion. And it is in no way comparable to pointing out an argument that was debunked nearly twenty years ago.

Sometimes inhibiting communication is a worthy goal. Sometimes you don’t want to see another gigantic wall of text combatively arguing for the superiority of wizards interrupting your friendly conversation about fun ways to roll dice.

Also, and I’d really like you to understand this - using the word “fallacy” in conversation is 100% as annoying as insulting someone. It’s a way of dismissing what someone is saying without actually engaging with it.

[MaxWilson]

As one final note, I think it's a bit funny you're using Skill Empowerment as an example when wizards have it too. I mean, they have better things to spend their slots on, but they could glyph it during downtime and even share it with friends, so they've got an edge there.

You misread what Citan wrote. Citan said that the new Skill Empowerment spell is the only reason wizards catch up, in a sense, at level 9. Before Skill Empowerment existed, there was only Guidance and Enhance Ability, neither of which is on the wizard list.

Sidenote: given that you've fully persuaded yourself that Glyph of Warding is game-breaking, it's quite funny that you dismiss clerics and bards from consideration, since they both have it. In fact clerics, unlike wizards, always have it, whereas wizards only get to pick two spells per level.

[Tanarii]

Also, and I’d really like you to understand this - using the word “fallacy” in conversation is 100% as annoying as insulting someone. It’s a way of dismissing what someone is saying without actually engaging with it.Yup. It's often a form of the fallacy fallacy.

[Pex]

For my next long term campaign I would like to try the method of roll 24d6, count # of 1s and add 8, that is one score, count # of 2s and add 8 that's another and so on. This will always give an average of 12. Upper limit is 32 though, unlikely, but can easily be solved with redistribution. Can also be tweaked if different power level is wanted.

Interesting. Aesthetically it falters if you roll exactly or nearly 4 of each number for all 12s or a 13 here for an 11 there and the other extreme of rolling 14 of one number. The odds are forever in your favor of not rolling the warped outliers, if it does happen you need to solve what to do about it when it happens. The method itself is silly, but I find it a fun silly.

[zinycor]

Yup. It's often a form of the fallacy fallacy.

Did someone say FALLACY (https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9)!!!

[ZorroGames]

This.

In Point Buy,

If you're a dragonborn you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a half-elf you're a bard or warlock. (Interesting I have not seen half-elf sorcerers.)
If you're a halfling you're a rogue.
If you're a wood-elf you're a druid or monk.
If you're a high elf you're a rogue or wizard.
If you're a tiefling you're a warlock.
If you're a mountain dwarf you're a paladin or fighter.
If you're a hill dwarf you're a cleric.

I have my own bias. I'm variant human. Not all the time but most of the time. I like the feat and extra skill, a lot. As with human versatility, though, I'm any class except rogue and ranger due to my incapability of playing those classes. I don't have the mindset to do those classes justice.

Not true, at least for me.

I am striving to play all basic 11 classes with Mountain Dwarf characters and loving it.

Currently “active” in AL games I have Tier 2 Mountain Dwarf Open Hand Monk and (Earth Genasi) Battlemaster Fighter plus active Tier 1 Mountain Dwarf Life Cleric (“not a healbot” character,) Mountain Dwarf Bard after Paladin 2 dip, VHuman wizard 2 about to dip a level of fighter after Wizard 3, and a “just died” Chultan VHuman 6th level Ranger (ranged) - R.I.P.

Lots more classes of Mountain Dwarf characters in queue with decent background stories (paragraphs, not novelette) as to how they chose those careers.

[strangebloke]

And, final note here: Insults, which essentially only ever escalate in any given conversation, are the bane of communication.
To be clear, you've been demanding an explanation for "Why is rolling fun?" for several pages now. Max and I have been consistently saying all along, with varying images and examples... "Because it is! Randomness (to some extent) is a desirable feature in game design." We personally like it, others here like it, and nearly all TTRPGs involve some level of randomness. Usually its dice, but some times its cards or a jenga tower. I've said some variation of this nearly a dozen times, and you were still insisting that I hadn't proved that it was fun.

Insults can serve another purpose: emphasis. You clearly weren't paying heed to what I saw as my keystone argument, so I thought it might make you pay attention to it. By all accounts, it worked. I realize that incivility is not good practice, and sure, I may have inhibited conversation, but ask yourself: How much conversation was actually happening?


It is relatively clumped around the average, with a high chance to get values around 12 with maybe one or two outliers. I think this is because the rolls for the difference stats are not independent, but correlated. I like the look of them though. It might be a good idea to also allow choosing the standard array instead, which are more graded.
Yeah, from a few roll sets that's about the conclusion I had come to as well. Probably reason enough for me to not try it, unfortunately. It is a very cool method though.

Has anyone looked at what happens if you roll 18d6 and let people add them up as they choose? I'm guessing you'd end up with a lot of characters with 3 INT and three stats above 16, so maybe a 'reroll ones' policy would be a good idea.

A purely theoretical thought experiment for determining scores (so not used in play):

You get 500 points.
Each time you raise an ability you pay points equivalent to the score to which you raise it.
Eg. if you raise a score from 8 to 9 you pay 9 points.

Total points needed for each score are simple to calculate: (Score x (Score+1))/2
E.g. to raise a score from 0 to 12 you need (12 x 13)/2 points or 72 points.

Points must be used until no score can be raised anymore, left over points could be used to buy goodies.

For comparison, the standard array for 5E, [15,14,13,12,10,8], would cost 485 points and with this system you could raise any of those scores, except 15, with one point.

Possible arrays with this system are (before racial adjustment)

14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (500 pts) - average 12.33
15, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (500 pts) - average 12.17
16, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8 (500 pts) - avarage 12.17
18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8 (500 pts) - average 12.00
17, 17, 11, 10, 9, 7 (500 pts) - average 11.83 (good one to use for human)
18, 16, 10, 10, 10, 7 (500 pts) - average 11.83

Overall it means that if you have fairly balanced ability scores, you will have an higher average score. To acquire a high score in a specific ability you'll have to accept a slightly lower average.

Adjustment of system possible especially concerning the number of points available.

This is probably the most complicated system of point-buy I've seen. It's much more favorable to high stats than regular point buy is. An 18 here costs 171 and a 12 costs 78. With standard point buy (if you expand it to include 18s) an 18 costs 19 and a 12 costs 4. I'm not sure whether I love it or feel indifferently towards it. On the one hand, I favor systems that allow characters to be a bit creative with their ASIs/Feats, but on the other, I also favor systems that reward players for having good off-stats.

[Pelle]

Interesting. Aesthetically it falters if you roll exactly or nearly 4 of each number for all 12s or a 13 here for an 11 there and the other extreme of rolling 14 of one number. The odds are forever in your favor of not rolling the warped outliers, if it does happen you need to solve what to do about it when it happens. The method itself is silly, but I find it a fun silly.

I don't remember where I saw it suggested first. I don't find it silly personally, but I guess I'm more than average interested in this :)

It's quite low chance to get 4 of each, about 1/10000. For my taste it's a bit too low chance to get an 8. Though, I'm also not a fan of extremely low ability scores, so I might not tweak it further. Another quirk is the distribution of even-odd scores. You can only get 0, 2, 4 or 6 odd/even numbers due to the correlation. It's the same with the method of rolling normally 3 times, then 26-x. A solution I'm considering is to roll a 50-50 chance to add +1 to the first score, though that is not so elegant...


10 arrays sampled in excel. I like the look of them, this configuration (24d6 +8) gives the same average as the 5e standard array.

11 11 10 10 11 11 12 09 16 12
13 11 13 13 13 12 10 16 08 10
16 12 13 10 11 11 14 10 10 13
11 11 09 11 15 13 12 11 13 10
09 15 10 11 09 11 11 11 11 13
12 12 17 17 13 14 13 15 14 14

[Corneel]

Has anyone looked at what happens if you roll 18d6 and let people add them up as they choose? I'm guessing you'd end up with a lot of characters with 3 INT and three stats above 16, so maybe a 'reroll ones' policy would be a good idea.
Another idea might be: throw 24 d6. For each ability you can choose three dice from your pool of 24.


This is probably the most complicated system of point-buy I've seen. It's much more favorable to high stats than regular point buy is. An 18 here costs 171 and a 12 costs 78. With standard point buy (if you expand it to include 18s) an 18 costs 19 and a 12 costs 4. I'm not sure whether I love it or feel indifferently towards it. On the one hand, I favor systems that allow characters to be a bit creative with their ASIs/Feats, but on the other, I also favor systems that reward players for having good off-stats.
As for it being complicated: it's a thought experiment as I said, but a lot easier to use now, with spreadsheets and other computer aids, than in the olden days. Its basic purpose is to have a more gradual progression in terms of increase in cost for higher abilities.

[GlenSmash!]

Another idea might be: throw 24 d6. For each ability you can choose three dice from your pool of 24.


Assuming I can't just use the same three dice over and over for each ability right?

[MaxWilson]

Assuming I can't just use the same three dice over and over for each ability right?

Heh. If the DM said you technically could, would you?

[Whit]

Rolling dice is always fun but you get problem.
Someone in the group rolls great and someone rolls crap. 1 or more of each.
Now the low top player can’t playvthe character he wanted and feels underwhelming with the high roll players. It’s the bottom line.

After playing 30+ years of rolling, I find pre set 15,14,13,12,10,8 (?) the best way over rolling or point buy. Reason is it’s fair for all vs random roll, or bs point by firvthe 15x3,8x3. And no one roll plays the 8’s.
Only thing I like more fir AL rules is the out of the sand box play style stories and magic items however I think that can be worked out.
I really prefer seeing equal stats abs then from there decide to build stats or feats to be different

[Tanarii]

And no one roll plays the 8’s.That's a problem if people don't roll play it. :smalltongue: But roleplaying it is usually a disaster.

Because the difference between an average 10 and a below average 8 is only -1. So rolling is where it's going to show up, in the long term. Not in overreaction roleplaying, where a slightly below average 8 as if it's a crippling problem is ... just kinda sad, really.

[Corneel]

Assuming I can't just use the same three dice over and over for each ability right?
That goes without saying. The chances you don't have three sixes in your pool are quite low.

[GlenSmash!]

Heh. If the DM said you technically could, would you?

I might, but not with 3 sixes. I just have no desire to have a character that's great at everything. Decent at everything has an appeal to me though.


That goes without saying. The chances you don't have three sixes in your pool are quite low.

It might go without saying to you, based on some players I know it's better to be explicit :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

That's a problem if people don't roll play it. :smalltongue: But roleplaying it is usually a disaster.

Because the difference between an average 10 and a below average 8 is only -1. So rolling is where it's going to show up, in the long term. Not in overreaction roleplaying, where a slightly below average 8 as if it's a crippling problem is ... just kinda sad, really.

Well, I could turn that around and say that a guy with 8 int is only a +3 smarter than a dog. A minus one is a significant increase in failure chance for easy (DC 5) tasks, and can fail at things that average people straight up can't (DC 0). I don't disagree that people overplay it, but there is some credence to the argument that you should roleplay your stats a little bit.

I think the reason people overplay it is that they think that they IRL have INT 18 or so. TTRPG players in my experience are pretty puffed up about their smarts. "Clearly this slightly-below-average character I'm playing must be way more stupid than I!" In reality everyone's probably in the 8-14 range, and a character who has 8 INT might be as clever, creative and capable as his 16 INT player, given the proper motivation. Especially with respect to tactics, since for the character, combat and adventuring is their life, they can be assumed to take things a lot more seriously.

[Tanarii]

I think the reason people overplay it is that they think that they IRL have INT 18 or so. TTRPG players in my experience are pretty puffed up about their smarts. "Clearly this slightly-below-average character I'm playing must be way more stupid than I!" lol for sure :smallamused:

But also, the average for PCs is over 12 (after racials) at 1st level. So an 8 does seem low when you're looking at a budding super-hero (aka D&D 1st level character) rocking 2-3 14+ ability scores. Even more so once you've hit full-time super-hero status, and cranked up your primary to 18-20 and your secondary to 16.

[strangebloke]

Another idea might be: throw 24 d6. For each ability you can choose three dice from your pool of 24.

So, I did the math on this. The average stat total is 75.6, which makes this a fair bit higher than 4d6b3, but still within the range of point buy. The variance is pretty great, but a low-end roll is still a 67, which is hardly 'unplayable.' A 15/15/15/8/8/8 spread, for instance, has stats totalling to 68, and nobody would call that unplayable. It's very likely that you'll have an 18 or 17 if you want it, with the possible caveat that you'll have to accept a 5 or a six on the lower end. A 3 or four is very unlikely since it requires 8-9 ones to be rolled.

I think... this is my favorite method so far. It more or less guarantees that you'll be able to play whatever you want without gimping your character, but leads to a fun bit of chaos nonetheless.

[Pelle]

So, I did the math on this. The average stat total is 75.6, which makes this a fair bit higher than 4d6b3, but still within the range of point buy. The variance is pretty great, but a low-end roll is still a 67, which is hardly 'unplayable.' A 15/15/15/8/8/8 spread, for instance, has stats totalling to 68, and nobody would call that unplayable. It's very likely that you'll have an 18 or 17 if you want it, with the possible caveat that you'll have to accept a 5 or a six on the lower end. A 3 or four is very unlikely since it requires 8-9 ones to be rolled.

I think... this is my favorite method so far. It more or less guarantees that you'll be able to play whatever you want without gimping your character, but leads to a fun bit of chaos nonetheless.

Hm, low-end is mean minus one standard deviation? Lower bound is of course 18.

I don't like this method for the following reason: it is essentially Point Buy, but with the similar variation in power level between players as with normal 4d6b3. So it lacks the 'fun' randomness in not choosing the exact distribution yourself, but includes the 'unfun' randomness in making some players' characters worse than others'.

[MaxWilson]

Hm, low-end is mean minus one standard deviation? Lower bound is of course 18.

I don't like this method for the following reason: it is essentially Point Buy, but with the similar variation in power level between players as with normal 4d6b3. So it lacks the 'fun' randomness in not choosing the exact distribution yourself, but includes the 'unfun' randomness in making some players' characters worse than others'.

I agree. This method results in objectively more powerful characters than regular rolling, but subjectively it likely produces less interesting (less organic) arrays with fewer weak points and less variation between today's PC and tomorrow's.

I'd rather just roll normally. (Unless my powergamer instincts take over, and then I'd pick this method every time.)

[Mister_Squinty]

I agree. This method results in objectively more powerful characters than regular rolling, but subjectively it likely produces less interesting (less organic) arrays with fewer weak points and less variation between today's PC and tomorrow's.

I'd rather just roll normally. (Unless my powergamer instincts take over, and then I'd pick this method every time.)

You could add a rule saying that a stat cannot be below 8 (or 6 if you want to have some really dumb fighters). Would put some boundaries on it and get results closer to point buy/array.

[MaxWilson]

You could add a rule saying that a stat cannot be below 8 (or 6 if you want to have some really dumb fighters). Would put some boundaries on it and get results closer to point buy/array.

Urgh, no thanks. The truncated stat range is one of the worst features of point buy, in this poster's opinion.

I'll just stick with 4d6k3 and/or 3d6-in-order.

[strangebloke]

Hm, low-end is mean minus one standard deviation? Lower bound is of course 18.

I don't like this method for the following reason: it is essentially Point Buy, but with the similar variation in power level between players as with normal 4d6b3. So it lacks the 'fun' randomness in not choosing the exact distribution yourself, but includes the 'unfun' randomness in making some players' characters worse than others'.


I agree. This method results in objectively more powerful characters than regular rolling, but subjectively it likely produces less interesting (less organic) arrays with fewer weak points and less variation between today's PC and tomorrow's.

I'd rather just roll normally. (Unless my powergamer instincts take over, and then I'd pick this method every time.)

Eh, you're quite right, unfortunately. I suppose that every time I see a new method the excitement of new math just takes over. :smallsigh. So I guess it's back to the 2d6+6, invert the first three plan.

EDIT: did more introspection on "first 3:(2d6+6), second 3:(26-first 3)" and I've decided that I really like it... with one caveat. I going to change the 26 to either a 25 or 27. My reasoning for this is simple. Your odds of rolling a 13 are very good on three rolls. There's even a good chance of rolling it twice. This results in 4 (!) stats set to 13. To me that's that's not a great thing. If you do 25-first3 it makes getting four of the same number impossible. Your stat total will always be 75 which is just fine.

And, barring anyone changing my mind again, I think that I'm going to stick with that method. (needs a clearer name though.)

[MaxWilson]

Eh, you're quite right, unfortunately. I suppose that every time I see a new method the excitement of new math just takes over. :smallsigh. So I guess it's back to the 2d6+6, invert the first three plan.

Okay, but bear in mind that what is a negative for me is a positive for you. I want lots of variance because I like rolling up lots of (N)PCs in my spare time (many of which never see the light of play, but are still fun to imagine) and variance makes PC #1 different from PC #17. You want less variance because your players presumably play one PC at a time for months or years on end and you want them all to be roughly on the same footing with each other.

Different goals lead to different optimal methods.

[strangebloke]

Okay, but bear in mind that what is a negative for me is a positive for you. I want lots of variance because I like rolling up lots of (N)PCs in my spare time (many of which never see the light of play, but are still fun to imagine) and variance makes PC #1 different from PC #17. You want less variance because your players presumably play one PC at a time for months or years on end and you want them all to be roughly on the same footing with each other.

Different goals lead to different optimal methods.

No, I mean, I understand that, but people were kind of making me eat my own words there. I don't want variance in power, really, I just want higher stats overall and a distribution that's a little bit random. The 24d6b18 method is exactly not that.

[Citan]

Well, at least you actually read it. That's honestly a step up here, and why I'm even here at all, honestly.
On the contrary, I've spent a good deal of time on the system, and more importantly a good deal of time deliberately dissecting the system to understand how it functions. So if I've been unclear, please tell me and I'll walk you through it, with as much detail as you need.

Well, thanks for answering.
There are some dissension points I see coming from a taste difference. Others are, sorry to say, a strong biais of you blinding to what other says. Let's see together.



You'll note that I actually specifically referenced this earlier; a wizard is still so much better than everyone else, they can function without those, as can people trying to imitate being a wizard.

Again, I'm sorry to say, that's plain wrong, harshly wrong. In many dozen situations, in different levels, a Wizard would fare lesser than other classes.
And it's purely logic: if Wizard was so much powerful, nobody would ever play other classes in the first places... :)



But if you're not specifically being better than everything else in the game combined, you need your stats to function because the progression of monsters is based on that.

First wrong assertion: overall, in a party, the only thing that you'll ever always need is decent HP and AC. And those can be provided even with bad stats.
Everything else? Teamwork could easily make up for crappy stats, even if it indeed makes things overall more difficult.

Now for a solo character?
CON would still be important, as well as one other stat depending on how you go. Probably the attack stat for a martial, and the casting stat for a caster. But even that general conception could be turned around really.


I'll start here. First, let's get one thing out of the way: As written, the skill system is a bit of a joke. But in the context thereof, outside of a rogue(who is the only one in question that is seriously better on this one specific but poorly-defined and thus impossible to objectively measure).

That's your taste talking really. Of course, if you pick system as described as "full and complete", yeah, it's a mess. Pick it as "sufficiently detailed and expansive to build on whenever you face a case that was not directly expressed", and you'll enjoy it.



The underlying problem here is that bounded accuracy applies to skills, with only rogues really getting off the RNG. There is essentially no practical difference between expert-level tasks and basic level tasks, because untrained peasants can still not infrequently outperform trained specialists at their field.

Second false assertion: not only Rogues, but also Bards, Knowledge Clerics, Rangers and Barbarians have ways to break randomness, even if in a lower scale, either by being great in a few skills per class features, or by using slots, or both.



This means that having an action economy advantage, being able to throw more dice at it, means you are better. So at level one, wizards have a free +3.125 on every skill they make because they have a familiar that can aid them. This is a larger bonus than what you get at expertise for a decent amount of time.

Is that *really* the best you can do?
Wooh, Wizard gets +3 at level 1, so great...
Except that...
- In fights, your familiar will get killed at most on second turn (just enough time for enemies to see that this little pesky is actually annoying enough to warrant his death sentence).
- Outside fights, ANYONE can Help another. And Hep provides advantage, whether the helper had any proficiency or not.
Besides that...
- Several other classes than Wizard get Enhance Ability, which Wizard hasn't: advantage provides somewhere between +2 and +5 depending on the initial bonus / DC to reach ratio. At level 3. So early enough that Wizard shone only a handful of times.
- Expertise trumps the average of Find Familiar as soon as proficency bonus reaches 3.
- Find Familiar is a spell that a third of the classes can have "built-in", and beyond that anyone could grab as a dip, with Ritual Caster feat or Magic Initiate.
So much for that defining advantage really.


As one final note, I think it's a bit funny you're using Skill Empowerment as an example when wizards have it too. I mean, they have better things to spend their slots on, but they could glyph it during downtime and even share it with friends, so they've got an edge there.

You read what you want, not what I wrote: that spell is the only reason Wizards can catch up for a while.
Also, Glyphs of Warding are extremely cumbersome to use you know? Let's recall that you are talking about a 1-hour casting time spell that just disappears if the host object moves more than a few feet away from initial position.
Are you *really* ready to argue that it's as convenient, thus as efficient, as being someone with built-in Expertise? Defending this is more foolhardy than brave imo.
Also... You know... Bards and Clerics *also* have this spell.


After that, you have animate dead, which is why wizards are better at everything else, because they can simply throw more dice at any problem.

Seriously? You are really pulling that card? Do you realize you're talking about *skeletons* and *zombies*, aka "creatures any decent character beyond level 5 could one-shot? That *many* characters or level 5-6 could clear or make utterly useless with a single action?
Give me a Wizard having spent all slots against a single Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid of similar level, I'll put my gold on any of them. Technically even a Monk (especially 4E) or just an AT/EK could clear those.


This trend culminates in Simulacrum, where a wizard can get any number of rolls on their notably larger bonuses by spending gold, so they have more chances to roll high, which is what really matters because in 5e skills, outside of rogues, the RNG is more important than your actual skill numbers.

Confer what is said above. When you truely want to be good, Simulacrum is just a bad alternative: you'd just rather cast Foresight really (which, technically, is much better used with a Sorcerer thanks to Extended or a Bard thanks to Bardic Inspiration and Expertise).



First thing, once a wizard has hit level 5, they can one round every CR-appropriate monster without effort.

Again, totally pointless, void statement.
First, I'll suppose you are talking about control spells, because the only really damaging spell at that level is Fireball or Lightning Bolt
You seem to consider that Wizards would always...
a) Know a creature's weakness (without metagaming, it will be damn hard to explain in many cases, especially at such a low level)
b) Have the right spell prepared.
c) Be lucky enough that the creature will fail the save.
d) Or be lucky enough, only as a Diviner Wizard, that the Portent rolls you made that day were low enough to be used as swap-in for enemy save rolls.
That's day-dreaming, really.
Compare that to...
- A Bard using Heat Metal on an armored enemy: although there is a save in theory, in practice, considering donning time, it's a sure-win: automatic damage AND disadvantage against allies.
- A Druid using Plant Growth: now all enemies are reduced to ranged attacks, provided they have any (fun fact: ways to overcome speed reduction or difficult terrain or actually pretty rare: either using 3rd+ spell, or having innate flight/burrow). Or Sleet Storm (which Wizard has too, trying to mimick the Druid maybe? :)), severely reducing ranged threat.
- A Sorcerer using exactly the same spell as a Wizard (like Slow or Hold Person), except he has Heightened (and possibly be a Wild Magic Sorcerer), so the chance of him not wasting his slot is much much higher...

I guess for damage you'd rely on Animate Dead again? Well, provided all creatures hit, yeah it makes a nice sum of damage. But beyond the fact that has a very low chance of happening, well, your undead *need* to be able to attack in the first place: against archer skeletons, any kind of cover will do (obviously total cover being best), as well as quite a few number of defensive spells (*poke Wind Wall for the best competitor here*). For melee, killing them before they come close, slowing them down with difficult terrain or applying any mass debuff will work extremely well...


As for durability, it's worth noting that a wizard really only cares about intelligence, so they can jack up their Con easier than a gish, monk, or anything like that. Especially that, as a SAD class, they are more likely to get feats earlier than non-SAD classes. And the difference between hit dice is seriously minimal. This gets worse if you're talking about an abjurer(which you shouldn't, but it's still an option), because they have a decent rechargeable HP buffer.

Which is, again, factually wrong. A Wizard with 10 DEX would need to use many more slots on defensive spells than a one with 16 DEX.
Or, in reverse, the same could be held true for any pure caster: even more actually for others: Sorcerer gets Draconic and Dodge+cast (Quicken), Warlocks get light armor and possible free Mage Armor and False Life, Bards get at least light and possibly medium armor + Bardic Inspiration, Clerics are over the top in self-defense...
And when you make other classes enter competition, you should realize the total ridicule of your assertion.
A Paladin will gloat in heavy armor and shield + Aura of Protection: any average attack or spell that would make a big dent into the Wizard won't even faze him.
A Monk could take the same number of attacks as a Wizard and get only hit 1/4 of the times, between good base AC and Dodge as a bonus action.
An Eldricht Knight, which has even less a need for casting stat if he intend on using magic defensively, can carry around a nasty 24-26 AC several rounds per day because he doesn't care about overcasting Shield/Absorb Elements.



As I've discussed previously, casters can spend money for invincibility.

Which is true for all casters. And they can spend money on many other things: hiring mercenaries or spies, using money for other great spells that Wizard cannot have (confer all the class guides, I have no time to teach you about its).


A Glyph of Tiny Hut means you have an on demand shield that is absolutely invincible.

I wouln't qualify as an "on-demand invincibility" something that requires a bit more than an hour of preparation and having the enemies conveniently coming right where it's the best place and moment for you. And I'll pass on the fact that these enemies will probably use that time to spy on you and as much as possible set up a deadlish welcome party for when the spell end. Of course, your party will be ready to, but it does kinda sums up as you cornering yourself for the final showdown.



Casters can also fly. Look through the Monster Manual for me. Notice how few monsters can do a single thing to a peasant under the effect of Fly with a longbow.

Well, if you go that way, you could also notice how few things a peasant could do to monsters, even with a longbow.
Again, seriously? That is your defining victory tactic?
At least tell me that you'll Fly your teammates or something.



And it's worth noting that if you're not exploiting this kind of thing, there are numerous monsters in the Monster Manual that flatly kill people anyways, wizard or not.

Define numerous: if you are talking about the "big dozen" of CR 20+ creatures, facing a lesser than 18th level party? Then, yeah, most probably (actually, I'm pretty sure some characters would have enough in them to survive anything at that level already, like a Long Death Monk, but no time for crunch).
If you are talking of CR 20+ creatures facing lvl 20 party? Then you are DEAD WRONG.
Bear Barbarian, Ancients Paladin, Monks, Divine Soul Sorcerers (properly built those ones) and above all else Moon Druid are near unkillable, much, much more than any Wizard except Abjuration ones.
Of course, for a decent lvl 20 Wizard, death is but a minor annoyance thanks to all the "be prepared for bad things" spells, but a set-back nonetheless.



And, related to that and frankly most importantly when discussing vulnerability, wizards are the only class that get to cast Magic Jar, and so are the only class that is actually immune to the local Peasantville militia.

I simply don't understand what you meant there...



So, again, druids can pretend to be wizards, bards can spend permanent resources to be worse wizards, and wizards are still better than everyone else and the most efficient party option is to give them the majority of the party loot.

That's insanity here, sorry for the bluntness, you're basically in love with a concept, which drives you to a degree of irrationality I rarely saw of all my life. XD
Druid don't "pretend to be wizards", they are themselves, and themselves is much better than Wizards in many situations.
Bards are not "worse Wizards when spending permanent resources": they are themselves, a nice balance between buff, utility and direct offense, except that they can occasionally tip-toe on anyone's feet in their own expertise area, because they can combine the best spells of any category.



You're making my arguments for me here, especially when a bard doing what you're describing means the bard is not taking the actually powerful spells.

It's funny you say that because I didn't really say anything specific...



Again, this argument fails on bounded accuracy. You need to scrabble for those +1s to have your DCs scale to be level appropriate.

Wrong, confer above.



And this is missing the more important point, which is if you compare a caster doing what you're describing with awful stats and great stats, which is likely to happen, the one with poor stats is just going to suck.

This is probably in the top 5 of the worstly wrong things I ever read (or wrote myself ;)) on this forum.
Even the worst character, unless you specifically built him to suck as hard as possible, would still provide something useful at every level: that's how great 5e is, thanks to bounded accuracy, concentration mechanic and scaling spells. Even a 20th level character with 10 overall could still help in and outside combat, provided he's at least the equivalent of a 5th level caster (really not hard to achieve).



Damage in 5e is bad. Objectively, it is every bit the awful strategy it was in 3.5. I know there's a strain of "common wisdom" that says otherwise, but it's simple to check HP totals against projected damage output by level, and note that no damage spell is even a fiftieth as good as contagion or forcecage or other spells that actually kill the enemy.

I'll let other people deal with that argument. Funniest thing though, you focused on one little section of what I said (automatic damage), when I actually put emphasis on all the spells that change the tide of an encounter without even relying on casting ability: Conjure spells, Walls spells, Plant Growth, concentration and non-concentration spells (you can dislike it however you want, but Death Ward and Circle of Power can be as heavy-weights in victory as, saying, successfully using a Slow on several monsters. Against the highest CR creatures, *as you said yourself*, many have very dangerous abilities).
Also, you know, I have the slight feeling this is a non-familiar word to you, but it exists and is best of the best ability of the whole game... *Teamwork*.



Illusions are so variable by group I don't think they can be meaningfully gotten into(although if they are, again, wizards are better than everyone else).

I agree with the first part (YMMV) but clearly not the second: sorry mate, the best here (after Illusion Wizards only) are Sorcerers (nothing worse for an illusion than being identified as such because you made big moves and noises: enter Subtle) and Arcane Tricksters (Magical Ambush + Hide as bonus action is such a wonder, even if you don't have access to the best spells)... :)


Healing is every bit as bad as damage,

You're right: clearly, putting your Paladin (that has smite slots left) or Rogue (who has Sneak Attack) or even your Sorcerer (that could clear mobs with a Fireball or try a Heightened Hold X) whose turn is coming just after you is really a waste of resources...



and buffing is a decent option, ruined by the fact that having essentially every buff be concentration was a bad idea.

Yeah you're right, I mean, it's not like you have Longstrider, Sanctuary, Aid, Warding Bond, Death Ward, Foresight, and another dozen great spells in-between (that escape my memory because I'm just too tired for this XD)... Oh wait!



Except, in the ones I've seen, they really aren't.
I'm sorry, but you're objectively wrong and here's why: Animate dead is better than every other class that doesn't get it combined. Give them longbows, and a handful can kill almost anything in the entire game. Take a hundred and you can kill a ancient red dragon.

This paragraph is the final stone of the tomb of your credibility.
Although I really hesitated between it and the following...



And that's not getting into glyph of warding. It gets even worse when you take simulacrum into account, so you have even better minions that don't time out. To the extent that scouting is even a thing, flight renders wizards just as good, but wizards can also trapfind better via a horde of skeletons. Spying, again to the extent it's a thing, detect thoughts, invisibility, advantage on any hide checks you make say you're not entirely right.

Do you realize that, barring the thing that other casters get permanent flight eventually, everything you say is basically a big sad joke?
Any caster of similar level will rather die laughing when seeing you expect a kill with a horde of 1/4 CR creatures (with obviously the crown coming to the Moon Druid, or any Druid really).

Any number of skill checks your creatures make won't help when the maximum total they can reach is still under the expected DC.

Good luck spying too, between the sneaking around of your horde (you know that we are not talking about tiny neither sneaky creatures here right?) and their total incomprehension of what they may see/hear (not every creature in D&d speaks the same language, far from it), and them reporting the few information they could get (they can't speak, could they only write -mentally and physically-?)...



Healing is a joke, and wizards win that realm by being able to one round anything not containing one of around three monsters(for which explosive runes can do the job), and BFC/shaping, wizards have wall of force and force cage, plus tiny hut, and more importantly by just killing things.

Factless, argument-less statement of blind faith. Just this part would require a whole thread to explain how much it's wrong...


The highest level wizards actually just win because they have an arbitrary number of actions and are just flatly better, and if your game gets to level 17, I genuinely cannot conceive of anything that can even remotely challenge a wizard save another level 17+ wizard, and even then they'd be functionally identical.
Same as just above, except far worse...
I suggest you look for threads in this forum in which people amused themselves to this kind of exercise... You'll be surprised by what you see.
In short: Wizard will win only if people are stupid enough to attack him on his ground. Otherwise? All bets are opened.




On the contrary, I've spent a good deal of time on the system, and more importantly a good deal of time deliberately dissecting the system to understand how it functions. So if I've been unclear, please tell me and I'll walk you through it, with as much detail as you need.

I don't like this, but I have to do it...
Let's enter the reality check: either you lie, or you just wasted your time.
The image you give of yourself from these posts is of just a child or maybe adolescent, extremely full of himself, that lives by procuration through adventures in which he is (and must be) the one biggest hero and as such tries as much as he can to do things by himself in a flashy way, thus despising all the others "under".
I'm not saying that's what you are. Just saying that's the first impression many people probably get.
(And I really don't pull that kind of things often, especially in public. But either I'm even half-right, and this may help you unblinding yourself, or you're in fact just a troll, in which case congrats, very good game as I spent a few hours between here and then to answer to you. Just know that every few time I express a judgemental opinion on someone -especially as brutal as such one-, this is something I really thought about for a long time. If I'm still 'speaking' after that self-check, the matter is probably serious).

What's sure though is...
Everything you said just demonstrate you have no idea of how mechanics in D&d actually work, or of the plain notion of party tactics and mutual benefit.
I don't pretend to be omniscient either, far from it (my frequent dissenssions and arguments with people here are quite a good reminder XD) but I know that most of the statements I present here have been confronted, argued and evaluated often enough to be reliable assessments.


Back to OPs ;)
Although I said mostly what I had to earlier, I'd like to point out that I myself really appreciate the randomness and thus potential originality of rolls. As well as the fact that...
- With "fixed rolls", it forces the player to drop off his build routine and explore ways to go around bad stats in primary or secondary stat, thus pushing him out of the comfort zone at first, but gaining a much broader knowledge (and often some epic moments of win or fail) at end.
- With "flexible rolls" (choose the stat assignment), it gives a strong motivation for the player to actually enforce and materialize that bad stat in his own roleplay, whether it's as little as a bad habit or as big as a mental/physical handicap... So it can be a source of inspiration actually, as well as a matrix for the DM to create funny/interesting situations from...
BUT...
The munchkin in me, considering how few games I play already / how apart our sessions are, prevents me from embracing the risk because there are so many particular things that I want to try, which usually rely on some multiclass/feat combination thus needing flat-out optimization and as little randomness as possible... ^^

If I had played even a few dozen characters so I had a chance to try the "optimized builds" that I'd really like to experience, then I'd probably have no problem then.
Same for a one-shot, or a funky campaign, or a game in which I know all other players and know they are reliable (I may even hope for bad rolls there just for the fun of it ^^).

[MaxWilson]

No, I mean, I understand that, but people were kind of making me eat my own words there. I don't want variance in power, really, I just want higher stats overall and a distribution that's a little bit random. The 24d6b18 method is exactly not that.

Really? How so? "Higher stats and a distribution that's a little bit random [without a lot of variance]" seems to me pretty much what you get out of the 24d6 method. I whipped up a little program to show what characters generated under 24d6 might look like, under some modest assumptions about how the player might group the dice (roll 4d6k3 and then reassign the lowest die from each stat elsewhere if it improves the score--as opposed to assigning ALL low dice elsewhere in order to generate as many 18s as possible). The results are indisputably higher than 4d6k3, and the distribution is still a little bit random, similar to 4d6k3 but with fewer truly low scores.

Here's ten example arrays and the dice that generated them.

14 (5,4,5)
13 (3,6,4)
13 (4,5,4)
13 (3,6,4)
11 (2,5,4)
7 (2,2,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
17 (5,6,6)
14 (6,4,4)
12 (3,3,6)
11 (3,3,5)
9 (2,2,5)
6 (2,1,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
13 (5,3,5)
13 (5,4,4)
12 (2,4,6)
10 (2,5,3)
9 (2,5,2)
8 (2,2,4)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
15 (3,6,6)
14 (3,6,5)
12 (6,4,2)
13 (2,5,6)
10 (3,2,5)
9 (3,4,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
17 (5,6,6)
15 (4,6,5)
14 (4,4,6)
12 (4,4,4)
11 (3,6,2)
11 (3,6,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 2; 1; 2; 1]
================
14 (5,5,4)
13 (3,5,5)
12 (6,5,1)
11 (4,5,2)
9 (2,1,6)
7 (2,2,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
17 (5,6,6)
17 (6,6,5)
17 (5,6,6)
14 (4,4,6)
13 (3,4,6)
9 (2,2,5)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 2; 1; 2]
================
16 (6,4,6)
15 (4,5,6)
14 (5,4,5)
13 (3,4,6)
13 (4,5,4)
14 (3,6,5)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 3; 1; 1; 1]
================
15 (5,5,5)
14 (4,6,4)
14 (3,6,5)
13 (2,5,6)
11 (1,5,5)
7 (3,2,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
14 (6,2,6)
11 (2,5,4)
10 (3,4,3)
8 (4,2,2)
8 (2,2,4)
4 (1,1,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]

Source code is here: https://repl.it/repls/HorribleVastDistributedcomputing

[strangebloke]

Really? How so? "Higher stats and a distribution that's a little bit random [without a lot of variance]" seems to me pretty much what you get out of the 24d6 method. I whipped up a little program to show what characters generated under 24d6 might look like, under some modest assumptions about how the player might group the dice (roll 4d6k3 and then reassign the lowest die from each stat elsewhere if it improves the score--as opposed to assigning ALL low dice elsewhere in order to generate as many 18s as possible). The results are indisputably higher than 4d6k3, and the distribution is still a little bit random, similar to 4d6k3 but with fewer truly low scores.

Here's ten example arrays and the dice that generated them.

Source code is here: https://repl.it/repls/HorribleVastDistributedcomputing

That's really cool!

But honestly, I think that most players would assign all the high dice to their main stat to get an 18. Having an 18 at first level is worth having a 6 in a dump stat.

It's basically rolling for your point buy value, except that the relative cost for buying 'high' stats is only slightly greater than for boosting low ones. I did a few experimental rolls, and the thing I always came back to was: "Sure, I could boost that 6 INT to an 8, or I could have +2 to a tertiary stat like CON that I'm actually going to use."

At least on the basis of how I'd group them, I found that I wasn't rolling to see how good of stats I got, I was rolling to see how bad my dump stat was going to be.

[MaxWilson]

Seriously? You are really pulling that card? Do you realize you're talking about *skeletons* and *zombies*, aka "creatures any decent character beyond level 5 could one-shot? That *many* characters or level 5-6 could clear or make utterly useless with a single action?
Give me a Wizard having spent all slots against a single Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid of similar level, I'll put my gold on any of them. Technically even a Monk (especially 4E) or just an AT/EK could clear those.


I will cheerfully take that bet. Arbitrarily, let's pick 11th level (because we have to pick something). An 11th level Necromancer can use Inspiring Leader on all of his skeletons to give each skeleton 12 temp HP (assuming Cha 13, which is the minimum for Inspiring Leader). I won't even bother calculating his theoretical maximum skeletons--if he spends all of his eligible 3rd+ spell slots on fresh corpses he'll have (3x2 + 3x4 + 2x6 + 1x8) = 38 skeletons, each with 36 total HP (24 HP + 12 temp HP) for a total of 1368 aggregate HP and (361 * hit rate) DPR per round.

That leaves the Necromancer with his 1st and 2nd level spell slots to do things like cast Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, Shield, and Web to keep himself alive and help the skeletons kill the bard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/monk/AT/EK. (And I'm neglecting Arcane Recovery, or he'd have another 5th level slot or a couple of 3rd level slots to play with.)

Now, 36 HP isn't impossible for a boosted Fireball to one-shot, so if the wizard were actively trying to help you kill all of his minions, he could arrange to put them all in Fireball formation so that all you have to do is win initiative, cast Fireball V or VI, and hope that all of the skeletons fail their saves. But the skeletons have ranged weapons, so why would he ever put them in Fireball formation?

If the skeletons have been ordered to stay in skirmish formation (say for convenience, four groups of nine skeletons 50' apart, with the two extra skeletons detailed to bodyguard the necromancer) you will not be able to take them all out in one shot, and your AC 20ish cleric will mostly annihilate one group of skeletons with his Channel Divinity and then take 73 points of damage in one round from the other three groups. This doesn't end well for the cleric. A squishy AC 16 bard or druid will fare even worse. And that's with me treating "mostly annihilate" as "instantly totally annihilate," on the assumption that the cleric can arrange to win initiative somehow using Combat As War tactics (e.g. Trickery cleric with Pass Without Trace).

Honestly, EK or AT is probably the best bet here, but it's mostly because they can bypass the skeletons and strike straight for the Necromancer, who's only got a few Shield spells and Expeditious Retreat left. In a more typical scenario where the Necromancer has a dozen or so skeletons and a bunch of spell slots still left, that wouldn't work.

I haven't even gotten into additional considerations like up-armoring the skeletons or giving them dual shortswords or nets.




I don't want to get involved in discussions with this individual any more directly, but I did notice that you've been talking with him/her/them and that there are a couple of rules errors they've made which you haven't seemed to notice yet.

(1) You can't Glyph of Warding a Leomund's Tiny Hut because it doesn't target "a single creature or an area"; it targets "Self." Ineligible.

(2) A familiar can't Help you do a task that it cannot itself attempt, or when help from another creature would not be useful.


Working Together
Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9). A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help.

So, a wizard trying to claim that his familiar is going to give him advantage on every conceivable skill check from research to ballroom dancing to persuading the king's seneschal to help him find the maiden who fits the glass slipper... is clearly bogus. Besides, if it wasn't bogus, it wouldn't be unique to wizards anyway, since any PC can Help as well or better than a familiar can.

(3) Bonus point: at high levels and with sufficient preparation time, all spellcasters with access to Wish and/or Divine Intervention become very similar. Clerics, sorcerers and bards get the exact same access to Clone, Simulacrum, Symbol, etc, etc. as wizards do. (Clerics in fact get it from level 11, long before Wish comes online, although Divine Intervention is so much in the hands of offscreen NPCs (gods) that it's hard to imagine a DM letting you exploit that to gain a Simulacrum at level 11, despite it being theoretically possible.)

Without sufficient preparation time of course this doesn't work, and neither do Glyph of Warding/Symbol shenanigans, which of course don't work for lots of other reasons too.

[Zalabim]

Really? How so? "Higher stats and a distribution that's a little bit random [without a lot of variance]" seems to me pretty much what you get out of the 24d6 method. I whipped up a little program to show what characters generated under 24d6 might look like, under some modest assumptions about how the player might group the dice (roll 4d6k3 and then reassign the lowest die from each stat elsewhere if it improves the score--as opposed to assigning ALL low dice elsewhere in order to generate as many 18s as possible). The results are indisputably higher than 4d6k3, and the distribution is still a little bit random, similar to 4d6k3 but with fewer truly low scores.

Here's ten example arrays and the dice that generated them.

The MAD one
14 (5,4,5)
13 (3,6,4)
13 (4,5,4)
13 (3,6,4)
11 (2,5,4)
7 (2,2,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
The SAD one
17 (5,6,6)
14 (6,4,4)
12 (3,3,6)
11 (3,3,5)
9 (2,2,5)
6 (2,1,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
Disappointment
13 (5,3,5)
13 (5,4,4)
12 (2,4,6)
10 (2,5,3)
9 (2,5,2)
8 (2,2,4)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
Standard Array
15 (3,6,6)
14 (3,6,5)
12 (6,4,2)
13 (2,5,6)
10 (3,2,5)
9 (3,4,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
Superstandard Array
17 (5,6,6)
15 (4,6,5)
14 (4,4,6)
12 (4,4,4)
11 (3,6,2)
11 (3,6,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 2; 1; 2; 1]
================
Substandard Array
14 (5,5,4)
13 (3,5,5)
12 (6,5,1)
11 (4,5,2)
9 (2,1,6)
7 (2,2,3)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
Demigod
17 (5,6,6)
17 (6,6,5)
17 (5,6,6)
14 (4,4,6)
13 (3,4,6)
9 (2,2,5)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 2; 1; 2]
================
Uber
16 (6,4,6)
15 (4,5,6)
14 (5,4,5)
13 (3,4,6)
13 (4,5,4)
14 (3,6,5)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 3; 1; 1; 1]
================
Hero
15 (5,5,5)
14 (4,6,4)
14 (3,6,5)
13 (2,5,6)
11 (1,5,5)
7 (3,2,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
================
Mortal
14 (6,2,6)
11 (2,5,4)
10 (3,4,3)
8 (4,2,2)
8 (2,2,4)
4 (1,1,2)
Leftovers: [1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1]

Source code is here: https://repl.it/repls/HorribleVastDistributedcomputing
I gave them pithy names. I imagine party 1 would mostly be hurt by how much better standard point buy could be, but party 2 is all over the field. It's not like putting Hawkeye on the Avengers. It's more like putting a part-time archery instructor on the Avengers.

[Selene Sparks]

Sometimes inhibiting communication is a worthy goal. Sometimes you don’t want to see another gigantic wall of text combatively arguing for the superiority of wizards interrupting your friendly conversation about fun ways to roll dice.If you do not want to communicate, simply cease doing so. There is no need for rudeness, nor to damage the level of discourse if you are not the sole party involved.

Also, and I’d really like you to understand this - using the word “fallacy” in conversation is 100% as annoying as insulting someone. It’s a way of dismissing what someone is saying without actually engaging with it.I knew this conspiracy theorist back a few years ago. He was a really nice guy, all things considered. If you needed help, he was willing to lend a hand with pretty much whatever, and was otherwise generally a good person to know. But he got up in arms whenever anyone would talk about things like the scientific method or independent verification or really anything that he took to be an attack on his brand of craziness.

Where I'm going with this is that, if you find a single mention of the fault at the core of the reasoning after several pages of discussion of fact, it seems that the problem here is something you're bringing in, rather than anything innate to the post.

Yup. It's often a form of the fallacy fallacy.Argument from fallacy is, in my experience, second only to ad hominem in terms of people managing to completely misunderstand what it actually means.

Something only qualifies as an argument from fallacy if your sole argument is that the reasoning behind the statement is incorrect, so the statement is incorrect. This is obviously distinct from an argument that both refutes the conclusion and finds flaw in the reasoning.

Well, thanks for answering. You're most certainly welcome.

Again, I'm sorry to say, that's plain wrong, harshly wrong. In many dozen situations, in different levels, a Wizard would fare lesser than other classes.
And it's purely logic: if Wizard was so much powerful, nobody would ever play other classes in the first places... :)Your argument here is flawed on two primary points. First, you are conflating power with playing the class, two entirely unrelated points, and then appealing to population.

By that reasoning Shadowrun teams would all be rigging magicians, and every 3.5 table would be nothing but Erudites, Artificers, Archivists, and Wizards , and since they're not, magicians, riggers, and the various T1 casters aren't obviously better than everyone else.

First wrong assertion: overall, in a party, the only thing that you'll ever always need is decent HP and AC. And those can be provided even with bad stats.
Everything else? Teamwork could easily make up for crappy stats, even if it indeed makes things overall more difficult.So, to clarify, your argument on stats is that the rest of the party can carry you if you're useless, so being useless isn't a big deal? That sounds contradictory.

That's your taste talking really. Of course, if you pick system as described as "full and complete", yeah, it's a mess. Pick it as "sufficiently detailed and expansive to build on whenever you face a case that was not directly expressed", and you'll enjoy it.The problem is that there is in fact nothing to build off of in most cases, because the rules were never actually written. You can whole-sale write a system from what is essentially the ground up, or you can make stuff up as you go(Or you can do what's mostly been done in my experience, and just port most things from 3.5 without even meaning to, because no one wants to actually go and find whether or not this is one of the few cases that was actually written out).

Honestly, I've been trying to work on a "rewrite" for the skill system for quite a while, and one of the reasons it's been taking so long is that, while they use a lot of words on it, there is almost nothing of actual substance there.

Second false assertion: not only Rogues, but also Bards, Knowledge Clerics, Rangers and Barbarians have ways to break randomness, even if in a lower scale, either by being great in a few skills per class features, or by using slots, or both.No, they really don't. Bards get what starts as a bonus worse than a familiar and escalates to being at most +6. Lore bards can add another 5.5, but only a handful of times and besides, this is when simulacrum comes online, so it doesn't matter. Clerics, again remain on the RNG which is made worse by the fact that the skills in question are based on a stat clerics don't care about while wizards do, so it's essentially a wash. Barbarians, admittedly, have one ability that does meet the qualifications I'd put out to be good at a limited subset of checks at level 18, but we're past the point where wizards can literally have an arbitrary number of actions at their whim, and probably have fifteen or so of this hypothetical level 18+ barbarian as pets anyways. With rangers, I'm not even seeing what ability you're saying puts them off the RNG, but if it's anything like the others, I'm dubious at best.

Is that *really* the best you can do?
Wooh, Wizard gets +3 at level 1, so great...
Except that...
- In fights, your familiar will get killed at most on second turn (just enough time for enemies to see that this little pesky is actually annoying enough to warrant his death sentence).Because wizards are known for running up and trying to knife people or cunningly try to use a skill kit to win in combat rather than just casting a kill spell.

- Outside fights, ANYONE can Help another. And Hep provides advantage, whether the helper had any proficiency or not. But they don't get "free advantage whenever they feel like" as something they can write on their character sheet. And, yes, anyone can do this which makes wizards better, because the underlying reason why wizards are better than everyone else is they get more actions than everyone else, and can do this as much as they like.

Besides that...
- Several other classes than Wizard get Enhance Ability, which Wizard hasn't: advantage provides somewhere between +2 and +5 depending on the initial bonus / DC to reach ratio. At level 3. So early enough that Wizard shone only a handful of times.
- Expertise trumps the average of Find Familiar as soon as proficency bonus reaches 3. Advantage is +3.125, so it's better than a proficiency bonus up until wizards unlock what makes them better than everyone else, which means you need to hit level 9 for expertise to actually be better. And, again, it's worth keeping in mind that, especially at lower level but really all the way through, the RNG is more important than your rolls. In a game I was in, we had an armored fighter being "the sneaky guy" over a rogue because the fighter simply rolled hot for a bit and the rogue didn't.

As for Enhance Ability, people can waste a spell slot to get what wizards were doing anyways? That doesn't sound terribly impressive.

- Find Familiar is a spell that a third of the classes can have "built-in", and beyond that anyone could grab as a dip, with Ritual Caster feat or Magic Initiate.Some classes do, in fact, get it for free like a wizard does, but are you genuinely suggesting that people spending a feat/ASI to get what wizards get for free is a good or balancing factor? It's a problem, and, worth noting, comes online at level four unless you're a human, so you can match a wizard for

So much for that defining advantage really.Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not saying familiars are a defining advantage, but it's something they get for free to get a general boost above other's specialties at low levels. It's like a 3.5 druid. Is the animal companion really a defining advantage? Not really, especially if you PrC out, but it's free and can outperform the fighter if the druid wants to.

You read what you want, not what I wrote: that spell is the only reason Wizards can catch up for a while.As I've established, until level 9 it is, at best, on par with just having a familiar.

Also, Glyphs of Warding are extremely cumbersome to use you know? Let's recall that you are talking about a 1-hour casting time spell that just disappears if the host object moves more than a few feet away from initial position. Hence why a bag of holding is useful.

Are you *really* ready to argue that it's as convenient, thus as efficient, as being someone with built-in Expertise? Defending this is more foolhardy than brave imo.Of course not. Having a mediocre feature built in is better than spending resources to use it, but being able to spend resources to be better than another class at that class's hole job is a problem, and wizards can definitely do it, while also being able to do everyone else's job as well.

Also... You know... Bards and Clerics *also* have this spell.Yes, this is true, but bards have to invest spells known and lack numerous buffs that the wizard can pick up for free without damaging their ability to cast other buffs, have their horde of doom, or so on. Clerics can also do this, to the same degree, but clerics also have native animate dead, and so are better than anyone that's not a wizard.

Seriously? You are really pulling that card? Do you realize you're talking about *skeletons* and *zombies*, aka "creatures any decent character beyond level 5 could one-shot? That *many* characters or level 5-6 could clear or make utterly useless with a single action?
Give me a Wizard having spent all slots against a single Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid of similar level, I'll put my gold on any of them. Technically even a Monk (especially 4E) or just an AT/EK could clear those.I'm afraid you're objectively wrong here. 5e's bounded accuracy means that the local Peasantville militia can kill almost everything in the game with longbows. Animate dead allows you to write "Local Peasantville militia" on your equipment list. It's that simple. Per body, skeletons are even better because they're proficient with whatever weapons you give them and have +2 dex.

Seriously, extreme range on a longbow is 600 feat. 100 skeletons are capable of killing an Ancient Red Dragon by pure weight of fire because 5e never bothered to address the problem. So you show whatever bard/cleric/druid/whatever, and compare its movespeed to how many arrows it can take, and seriously tell me there's anything it can do.

Confer what is said above. When you truely want to be good, Simulacrum is just a bad alternative: you'd just rather cast Foresight really (which, technically, is much better used with a Sorcerer thanks to Extended or a Bard thanks to Bardic Inspiration and Expertise).You are, again, mathematically wrong. Foresight is a 9th level spell that gives you the equivalent to having your pet weasel on your shoulder. A simulacrum gives you exactly that again, and stretches on indefinitely, especially since, once 9th level slots are online, you can have a genuinely arbitrary number of simulacra for essentially free.

And, more importantly, simulacra, in addition to trivially rendering you even better than everyone else again, also gives permanent power by letting you stock slots akin to glyph/symbol, and even once your simulacra has burnt through the slots, it's a permanent body to add to your horde.

Again, totally pointless, void statement.Incorrect, although I will concede that I was, in fact, hyperbolic. It takes a couple more levels for your knockoff peasant militia to be able to one-round everything, but it's close enough anyways.

First, I'll suppose you are talking about control spells, because the only really damaging spell at that level is Fireball or Lightning Bolt
You seem to consider that Wizards would always...
a) Know a creature's weakness (without metagaming, it will be damn hard to explain in many cases, especially at such a low level)
b) Have the right spell prepared.
c) Be lucky enough that the creature will fail the save.
d) Or be lucky enough, only as a Diviner Wizard, that the Portent rolls you made that day were low enough to be used as swap-in for enemy save rolls.Nope. I'm assuming that the math of the game renders animate dead better than everyone else.

That's day-dreaming, really.
Compare that to...
- A Bard using Heat Metal on an armored enemy: although there is a save in theory, in practice, considering donning time, it's a sure-win: automatic damage AND disadvantage against allies.
- A Druid using Plant Growth: now all enemies are reduced to ranged attacks, provided they have any (fun fact: ways to overcome speed reduction or difficult terrain or actually pretty rare: either using 3rd+ spell, or having innate flight/burrow). Or Sleet Storm (which Wizard has too, trying to mimick the Druid maybe? :)), severely reducing ranged threat.
- A Sorcerer using exactly the same spell as a Wizard (like Slow or Hold Person), except he has Heightened (and possibly be a Wild Magic Sorcerer), so the chance of him not wasting his slot is much much higher...First off, heat metal is bad. It does 9 damage. A Balgura has 68 HP, a barbed devil has 110, a drow warrior has 71, a gorgon 114, and the list goes on. That kind of non-damage is an utterly unacceptable use of a slot, especially since, as a concentration dot, it can be fizzled, stops you from casting a bunch of actually good spells and is unlikely to kill a great deal of the level appropriate enemies, plus it requires you to be within 60', meaning it, again. loses to the local Peasantville militia.

I guess for damage you'd rely on Animate Dead again? Well, provided all creatures hit, yeah it makes a nice sum of damage. But beyond the fact that has a very low chance of happening, well, your undead *need* to be able to attack in the first place: against archer skeletons, any kind of cover will do (obviously total cover being best), as well as quite a few number of defensive spells (*poke Wind Wall for the best competitor here*). For melee, killing them before they come close, slowing them down with difficult terrain or applying any mass debuff will work extremely well...Longbows have a range of 600'. Wind wall is stationary, and thus a temporary measure. Cover is indeed a potential problem, but, again, 600' range and a good enough move speed means I'm not terribly worried.

Which is, again, factually wrong. A Wizard with 10 DEX would need to use many more slots on defensive spells than a one with 16 DEX. First off, I've noted prior that a caster with god stats is, in fact, more powerful than one with awful stats, but the awful stats don't matter in comparison to non-casters.

As for slots, again, you're incorrect. By level 11, AC isn't going to matter a very good amount of the time anyways, and that's ignoring the fact that, when dealing with attacks that tactics can't mitigate(Either a pre-level 10 peasant army or something like a grapple-monster being fiated on top of you or whatever), the stats wouldn't matter overly much anyways, since bounded accuracy renders being hard to hit pretty much not a thing unless you're willing to invest far too much into it. But that's beside the point, because combat spells are basically all your 3+ level spells, so the second and below can be spent on whatever with no loss.

Or, in reverse, the same could be held true for any pure caster: even more actually for others: Sorcerer gets Draconic and Dodge+cast (Quicken), Warlocks get light armor and possible free Mage Armor and False Life, Bards get at least light and possibly medium armor + Bardic Inspiration, Clerics are over the top in self-defense...Abjurers can match the warlock, for whatever it's worth, but beyond that, again, this is mostly meaningless. You're proposing a sorcerer wastes its action economy advantage, which is an awful strategy when you could be using those resources to proactively prevent damage by killing things, mage armor isn't terribly relevant anyways, and the only thing worth really talking about as a decent AC score is cleric, but it is again mostly irrelevant anyways as magic jar renders a great deal of AC utterly irrelevant.

And when you make other classes enter competition, you should realize the total ridicule of your assertion.
A Paladin will gloat in heavy armor and shield + Aura of Protection: any average attack or spell that would make a big dent into the Wizard won't even faze him.
A Monk could take the same number of attacks as a Wizard and get only hit 1/4 of the times, between good base AC and Dodge as a bonus action.
An Eldricht Knight, which has even less a need for casting stat if he intend on using magic defensively, can carry around a nasty 24-26 AC several rounds per day because he doesn't care about overcasting Shield/Absorb Elements.You keep going on about AC as the only metric, which is silly because the optimal strategies are only marginally affected by it, but it's funny that you're using a bunch of silly, super-MAD classes and assuming they have great scores to compensate. Try running a monk on a commoner array and see how it turns out.

Which is true for all casters. And they can spend money on many other things: hiring mercenaries or spies, using money for other great spells that Wizard cannot have (confer all the class guides, I have no time to teach you about its).You mean use money on NPCs that can imitate what your third level spells give you for free, or invest in worse spells than either Glyph of Warding/Symbol or simulacrum? I'm hardly impressed.

I wouln't qualify as an "on-demand invincibility" something that requires a bit more than an hour of preparation and having the enemies conveniently coming right where it's the best place and moment for you. And I'll pass on the fact that these enemies will probably use that time to spy on you and as much as possible set up a deadlish welcome party for when the spell end. Of course, your party will be ready to, but it does kinda sums up as you cornering yourself for the final showdown.That's why you do this during down time. The only reason I even consider the glyphs a viable choice at all is that using them doesn't require you to give up your skeleton archers, because your skeleton archers are better than everything else.

Well, if you go that way, you could also notice how few things a peasant could do to monsters, even with a longbow. I've noticed how much they can do to a monster: Something. And when this is the case at all, this leads to the problem that this scales up. If a single peasant can so much as scratch Smaug, you don't need Bard with his magic arrow, you just need a hundred peasants. And if the monsters can't deal with a flier, then you don't even need a hundred peasant if that one peasant can repeat their action a hundred times.

Again, seriously? That is your defining victory tactic?
At least tell me that you'll Fly your teammates or something.The wonder of glyph of warding means that, in fact, the entire party of our hypothetical wizard here can, indeed, fly whenever needed, and notably, the flight is not at risk of fizzling if the wizard botches a roll.

Define numerous: if you are talking about the "big dozen" of CR 20+ creatures, facing a lesser than 18th level party? Then, yeah, most probably (actually, I'm pretty sure some characters would have enough in them to survive anything at that level already, like a Long Death Monk, but no time for crunch).
If you are talking of CR 20+ creatures facing lvl 20 party? Then you are DEAD WRONG.
Bear Barbarian, Ancients Paladin, Monks, Divine Soul Sorcerers (properly built those ones) and above all else Moon Druid are near unkillable, much, much more than any Wizard except Abjuration ones.
Of course, for a decent lvl 20 Wizard, death is but a minor annoyance thanks to all the "be prepared for bad things" spells, but a set-back nonetheless.Please tell me what you expect a barbarian, or paladin, or other class that's dumping intelligence because the stat has no inherent value this edition is going to do about an intellect devourer. Or two. Or ten. That's at CR 2 opponent, by the way. It's hardly alone, but it's the worst example I can think of off the top of my head.

I simply don't understand what you meant there...If a bard it jacking utility spells from a wizard, it isn't taking the action economy abuse from the wizard list, and is therefore worse than the wizard.

That's insanity here, sorry for the bluntness, you're basically in love with a concept, which drives you to a degree of irrationality I rarely saw of all my life. XD
Druid don't "pretend to be wizards", they are themselves, and themselves is much better than Wizards in many situations.
Bards are not "worse Wizards when spending permanent resources": they are themselves, a nice balance between buff, utility and direct offense, except that they can occasionally tip-toe on anyone's feet in their own expertise area, because they can combine the best spells of any category.Again, incorrect. Druids have no options as mechanically powerful as animate dead and their means of turning money into power times out while the wizard ones don't.

This is probably in the top 5 of the worstly wrong things I ever read (or wrote myself ;)) on this forum.
Even the worst character, unless you specifically built him to suck as hard as possible, would still provide something useful at every level: that's how great 5e is, thanks to bounded accuracy, concentration mechanic and scaling spells. Even a 20th level character with 10 overall could still help in and outside combat, provided he's at least the equivalent of a 5th level caster (really not hard to achieve).I'm sorry, but this is wrong on literally every level. Those three things you described are the root of, as far as I can tell, literally all but one of the problems with 5e. Bounded accuracy doesn't render a character's rolls notably relevant unless they're using the options discussed above because they don't have enough actions to take advantage of it seriously, while they still automatically lose to the local Peasantville militia. The concentration mechanic only further exacerbates this by limiting the number of usable non directly threatening actions one can take. Finally, and this is important, outside of a handful of spells, mostly already mentioned in this thread, spells scaling isn't really a thing. Your spells never actually scale at all. The good spells remain good and the bad ones remain bad, but trying to use the bad spells at higher levels costs you more. Fireball, for example, is grossly inadequate at its own level as is, but if you're casting it as a level 6 spell, you manage to not only do less damage relevant to your level, your expected damage output for one turn manages to be less than double what I get from a single round's actions from a single animate dead that lasts all day. And so you are paying in cost to get something that you used to get for free.

I'll let other people deal with that argument. Funniest thing though, you focused on one little section of what I said (automatic damage), when I actually put emphasis on all the spells that change the tide of an encounter without even relying on casting ability: Conjure spells, Walls spells, Plant Growth, concentration and non-concentration spells (you can dislike it however you want, but Death Ward and Circle of Power can be as heavy-weights in victory as, saying, successfully using a Slow on several monsters. Against the highest CR creatures, *as you said yourself*, many have very dangerous abilities).
Also, you know, I have the slight feeling this is a non-familiar word to you, but it exists and is best of the best ability of the whole game... *Teamwork*.Teamwork is, in fact, better than literally everything else in the game. And that's why wizards are better than everyone else; they bring their own team and it's a bigger team than anyone else.

I agree with the first part (YMMV) but clearly not the second: sorry mate, the best here (after Illusion Wizards only) are Sorcerers (nothing worse for an illusion than being identified as such because you made big moves and noises: enter Subtle) and Arcane Tricksters (Magical Ambush + Hide as bonus action is such a wonder, even if you don't have access to the best spells)... :)You mean the whole hiding thing where I've yet to find any actual rules for?

And, again, wizards are better at it because they can do it as well as do everything else they can do.

You're right: clearly, putting your Paladin (that has smite slots left) or Rogue (who has Sneak Attack) or even your Sorcerer (that could clear mobs with a Fireball or try a Heightened Hold X) whose turn is coming just after you is really a waste of resources... Putting... what? You're missing a word here such that I don't know what you're saying.

Yeah you're right, I mean, it's not like you have Longstrider, Sanctuary, Aid, Warding Bond, Death Ward, Foresight, and another dozen great spells in-between (that escape my memory because I'm just too tired for this XD)... Oh wait! Mediocre or too high level to be worth the slot competition mostly, but on the upside, you can glyph them and it's fine.

This paragraph is the final stone of the tomb of your credibility.
Although I really hesitated between it and the following...Well, it was fun while it lasted, I guess.

Again, do the math. Skeletons hit on a 18. You have a hundred of them. Add in movement, and the math is obvious.

Do you realize that, barring the thing that other casters get permanent flight eventually, everything you say is basically a big sad joke?
Any caster of similar level will rather die laughing when seeing you expect a kill with a horde of 1/4 CR creatures (with obviously the crown coming to the Moon Druid, or any Druid really). I'm sorry, but please actually run the numbers before dismissing my claim.

Any number of skill checks your creatures make won't help when the maximum total they can reach is still under the expected DC.Up until Simulacrum comes online, anything off the RNG for the skeletons, essentially no one but maybe a rogue is going to be reliably making. It's simple arithmetic.

Good luck spying too, between the sneaking around of your horde (you know that we are not talking about tiny neither sneaky creatures here right?) and their total incomprehension of what they may see/hear (not every creature in D&d speaks the same language, far from it), and them reporting the few information they could get (they can't speak, could they only write -mentally and physically-?)...Here you're arguing against nothing I said. Note, I gave specific non-combat spells as examples.

Factless, argument-less statement of blind faith. Just this part would require a whole thread to explain how much it's wrong...This was based on things clearly stated prior to this post within this thread. Throw a few symbols, or explosive runes, in a bag and this can scale up indefinitely to handle any threat. Raw numbers is always better than better numbers in this game, and wizards do this. That is why wizards are better. The ultimate decider within this game is the action economy, and wizards specifically break it better than anyone else.

Same as just above, except far worse...I see the specific exploit I was referring to wasn't obvious enough, so I'll spell it out for you. I didn't bother prior because it was so obvious I don't know how anyone could miss it.

You hit level 17. You build a simulacrum of yourself. You proceed to have your simulacrum use with to create a simulacrum of yourself, and have it obey you. This loop can be repeated indefinitely within an action. A wizard no longer has any meaningful cap on their usable actions, and so they, with their limitless actions, have essentially limitless power within the context of the game. Even outside of that, you can have a simulacrum wish you a giant ruby to turn to dust to fuel extra simulacra to wish for other resources such that you have a limitless supply of money in whatever for you need, and you can directly turn this limitless money to power.

So, I ask you directly, how would you meaningfully challenge someone that can literally generate any number of permanent minions on demand? How would you challenge someone that can have any amount of money on demand? And how would you challenge someone who can have not just their own but copies of everyone else's class features for free on demand?

I suggest you look for threads in this forum in which people amused themselves to this kind of exercise... You'll be surprised by what you see.
In short: Wizard will win only if people are stupid enough to attack him on his ground. Otherwise? All bets are opened.This is untrue. There aren't any efficient ways to deal with a sufficiently large block of actions at extreme range, and wizards get even better options later.

I don't like this, but I have to do it...
Let's enter the reality check: either you lie, or you just wasted your time.
The image you give of yourself from these posts is of just a child or maybe adolescent, extremely full of himself, that lives by procuration through adventures in which he is (and must be) the one biggest hero and as such tries as much as he can to do things by himself in a flashy way, thus despising all the others "under".
I'm not saying that's what you are. Just saying that's the first impression many people probably get.
(And I really don't pull that kind of things often, especially in public. But either I'm even half-right, and this may help you unblinding yourself, or you're in fact just a troll, in which case congrats, very good game as I spent a few hours between here and then to answer to you. Just know that every few time I express a judgemental opinion on someone -especially as brutal as such one-, this is something I really thought about for a long time. If I'm still 'speaking' after that self-check, the matter is probably serious).Again, you're making several assumptions(Not the least of which is gender-based, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). One thing I find telling here is that you've devolved into very specific personal attacks rather than simply checking my math, and, rather than entertaining the possibility that the structure of the game is different than you though, I must either be too stupid to have bothered to verify my claims or I'm a malicious entity out to engage in whatever nefarious purposes you feel the need to project onto me.

So, given that we've again devolved into insults, in this case doing so specifically attacking both me and my intentions, I think I'm going to bow out of this. If you're not willing to actually verify or entertain the other position, especially when you don't seem to have indecently verified your own position, this is, again, pointless. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to change the math underlying this game. But since you

What's sure though is...
Everything you said just demonstrate you have no idea of how mechanics in D&d actually work, or of the plain notion of party tactics and mutual benefit.On the contrary, my arguments have been rooted solely in the mechanics. You've not responded to the fact that mooks are threatening at every level to most things, and wizards can apply that tactic in a huge scale. You've not responded to the fact that you can freely stack any number of explosive runes or symbols together to kill anything in the game. You've not responded to the fact that you can an arbitrary number of simulacra if you feel like it. These are mechanics, and the optimal party strategy is to do whatever they can do engage in and further these tactics. The only thing you've added to this conversation is a new line of personal attack after a vast amount of unsupported disagreement, so I'm out before this goes somewhere more unpleasant.

[Pelle]

Really? How so? "Higher stats and a distribution that's a little bit random [without a lot of variance]" seems to me pretty much what you get out of the 24d6 method. I whipped up a little program to show what characters generated under 24d6 might look like, under some modest assumptions about how the player might group the dice (roll 4d6k3 and then reassign the lowest die from each stat elsewhere if it improves the score--as opposed to assigning ALL low dice elsewhere in order to generate as many 18s as possible). The results are indisputably higher than 4d6k3, and the distribution is still a little bit random, similar to 4d6k3 but with fewer truly low scores.


My main problem is that all those different arrays you generated vary in power level. That is mostly unfun for PCs in a long campaign. Here you also combined certain rolls to get some specific arrays. There are lots of other ways you could have combined them, though. That really makes this a somewhat inflexible Point Buy system. "You have this many resources (points or rolls), combine them to form your stats"

How about this method?
1d20+17 - this is the amount of points you get for Point Buy. It's balanced with normal 27 point buy, and it's very flexible. :smallsmile:

[Mister_Squinty]

And, barring anyone changing my mind again, I think that I'm going to stick with that method. (needs a clearer name though.)

"2d6+6 Flip"

[strangebloke]

"2d6+6 Flip"

I like it!

[nickl_2000]

Here would be an interesting method to do as a DM I roll PC # * 6 sets of stats. Then the players draft for the stats. So with 4 players I roll 32 sets of stats with the result of

16 ; 17 ; 18 ; 14 ; 11 ; 15 ; 10 ; 12 ; 15 ; 9 ; 9 ; 16 ; 9 ; 15 ; 7 ; 13 ; 14 ; 14 ; 13 ; 12 ; 15 ; 12 ; 16 ; 14

Round 1:
Player 1 picks a 18
Player 2 picks a 17
Player 3 picks a 16
Player 4 picks a 16

Leaving
16 ; 14 ; 11 ; 15 ; 10 ; 12 ; 15 ; 9 ; 9 ; 9 ; 15 ; 7 ; 13 ; 14 ; 14 ; 13 ; 12 ; 15 ; 12 ; 14

Round 2:
Player 4 picks a 16
Player 3 picks a 15
Player 2 picks a 15
Player 1 picks a 15

Leaving
11 ; 14 ; 11 ; 10 ; 12 ; 9 ; 9 ; 9 ; 7 ; 13 ; 14 ; 14 ; 13 ; 12 ; 12 ; 14

Round 3:
Player 1 picks a 14
Player 2 picks a 14
Player 3 picks a 14
Player 4 picks a 14

Leaving
11 ; 11 ; 10 ; 12 ; 9 ; 9 ; 9 ; 7 ; 13 ; 13 ; 12 ; 12


Etc, this makes it fair that everyone has similar stats but also gives the ability for someone with lower needs for stats (Moon Druid) to make a sacrifice of their stats to help out the team.



What do you think? Would this work?

[strangebloke]

What do you think? Would this work?

Sounds like a good way to have a fight during session 0. I guess I can see a player grabbing a low 7 or something similar just for the lolz, but overall... wouldn't be my pick. The game theory on that basically says "Always pick the highest stat available" no matter what.

I would at least add a rule that whoever picked the lowest stat last round gets to pick first that round. That way it's at least sometimes worthwhile to pick low on a round. (if, for example, you want a fourteen in both rounds 2 and 3.)

[smcmike]

Sounds like a good way to have a fight during session 0. I guess I can see a player grabbing a low 7 or something similar just for the lolz, but overall... wouldn't be my pick. The game theory on that basically says "Always pick the highest stat available" no matter what.

I would at least add a rule that whoever picked the lowest stat last round gets to pick first that round. That way it's at least sometimes worthwhile to pick low on a round. (if, for example, you want a fourteen in both rounds 2 and 3.)

Clearly the problem is using a snake draft. Everyone knows that auction drafts are more fun.

So, everyone gets $1000 gold coins to bid at the start of the game. The DM rolls 4d6b3. The players bid for the result. Repeat until all stat spots are filled. The characters start with the leftover gold. Three hours later you have characters.

[nickl_2000]

Sounds like a good way to have a fight during session 0.

Well you may as well start a campaign out right :)


It was just a thought on a way to balance out stats while not using standard arrays or point buy. Probably wouldn't work though as you said.

[Mister_Squinty]

Clearly the problem is using a snake draft. Everyone knows that auction drafts are more fun.

So, everyone gets $1000 gold coins to bid at the start of the game. The DM rolls 4d6b3. The players bid for the result. Repeat until all stat spots are filled. The characters start with the leftover gold. Three hours later you have characters.
Yeah, the other problem with using a snake draft here is there is no subjectivity to allow variance in results. While I may like "X Wide Receiver" over "Y Running Back" with my second pick, while you prefer the RB, if there's a 16 and a 15 available, I'm taking the 16, you're taking the 16, everyone's taking the 16.

[strangebloke]

Clearly the problem is using a snake draft. Everyone knows that auction drafts are more fun.

So, everyone gets $1000 gold coins to bid at the start of the game. The DM rolls 4d6b3. The players bid for the result. Repeat until all stat spots are filled. The characters start with the leftover gold. Three hours later you have characters.

Oh this is fun. Stupid, but fun. Reminds me of Amber or other systems.

[nickl_2000]

Yeah, the other problem with using a snake draft here is there is no subjectivity to allow variance in results. While I may like "X Wide Receiver" over "Y Running Back" with my second pick, while you prefer the RB, if there's a 16 and a 15 available, I'm taking the 16, you're taking the 16, everyone's taking the 16.

So the way to fix this would be to have

Str Choices: 18, 14, 13, 9
Dex Choice: 16, 12, 8, 5
INT choices: 12, 15, 16, 8

Which would definitely result is such needless over complications and potential for infighting that the game may end before you even create get out of session 0.

[Mister_Squinty]

So the way to fix this would be to have

Str Choices: 18, 14, 13, 9
Dex Choice: 16, 12, 8, 5
INT choices: 12, 15, 16, 8

Which would definitely result is such needless over complications and potential for infighting that the game may end before you even create get out of session 0.

This makes a lot more sense for a draft system. The DX stats are the QB, most every class wants a good one. CN is the running backs. Maybe not as critical as the QB, but you want a solid number. CH/WS/ST tailored to your team's needs, and IN is the Kicker you pick up in the last round. :smallbiggrin:

Addendum: Plus, you could have a situation where you roll one really good number for, say, Wisdom, with the rest low/mediocre, making it possible someone takes it over a better number elsewhere. Lots of potential for speculation.

[nickl_2000]

This makes a lot more sense for a draft system. The DX stats are the QB, most every class wants a good one. CN is the running backs. Maybe not as critical as the QB, but you want a solid number. CH/WS/ST tailored to your team's needs, and IN is the Kicker you pick up in the last round. :smallbiggrin:

Addendum: Plus, you could have a situation where you roll one really good number for, say, Wisdom, with the rest low/mediocre, making it possible someone takes it over a better number elsewhere. Lots of potential for speculation.

It would be interesting if you have a group that could handle it. Especially if you went with the ruling where the person who took the lowest score in the previous round goes first in the next round (with some riders for ties).

[Durzan]

I grew up with rolling in my games. Its only recently that I have started to appreciate point buy as a system.

How I handle character creation by rolling is as follows:


Each player rolls 4d6 drop the lowest 6 times. This is fairly standard.
Each player creates 3 set of arrays (or more if the GM is feeling generous) arrays using the method described above and then chooses the array they wish to go with.


This has the benefit of the randomness of the dice, but the player also isn't stuck with whatever they got when rolling their first array, and gives a greater chance for players to have less disparity in their stats.

[strangebloke]

This makes a lot more sense for a draft system. The DX stats are the QB, most every class wants a good one. CN is the running backs. Maybe not as critical as the QB, but you want a solid number. CH/WS/ST tailored to your team's needs, and IN is the Kicker you pick up in the last round. :smallbiggrin:

Addendum: Plus, you could have a situation where you roll one really good number for, say, Wisdom, with the rest low/mediocre, making it possible someone takes it over a better number elsewhere. Lots of potential for speculation.

Massively incentivizes someone to pick a class that doesn't use the stat that other classes do.

STR and INT builds look a lot better all the sudden.

[Pelle]

It would be interesting if you have a group that could handle it. Especially if you went with the ruling where the person who took the lowest score in the previous round goes first in the next round (with some riders for ties).

Especially fun if you allow/encourage PvP...

[MaxWilson]

Especially fun if you allow/encourage PvP...

I'm thinking that you may mean PvP a little more literally here than just PC vs PC...

[Mongobear]

Whatever you do, just make it so everyone has to use the same method.

If the majority wants Point Buy, everyone Point Buys. If majority is for Rolling, everyone is Rolling.

Mixxing the two is grounds for extremely unbalanced parties, and one character being leaps and bounds above the rest, totally throwing off the balance of encounter design. You will need to tailor encounters to challenge both sides of the party, and if the stronger PC(s) go down, then the weaker PCs are just dead.

Im currently in a party like this as a PotB Hexblade Warlock, the DM allowed us to choose standard Point Buy or 4d6b3 reroll 1s. I chose rolling of course, and my lowest stat is a 14, and I have 2 20s and an 18 after the level 4 ASI. Needless to say, I can completely ignore ASIs from here forward, and take nothing but Feats until the campaign is over, as well as multi-class any combo I want, Swashbuckler and Paladin look extremely tempting.

Meanwhile, most of my party is waddling around with maybe a 19 in one primary stat, if they didnt take a Feat, and likely wont have a Feat until 8th level, or more likely 12th level. The only person close to me is a Monk, who managed to have 2 18s after the level 4 ASI, but he is still a Monk, not exactly the most powerful class in the game.

The first encounter we had as a party, was completely 1 sided. The rest of them got ambushed before I joined the group, and nearly all of them were unconcious, or about to be dropped to 0 after their first round of Actions. Once I joined in, I got the killing blow on every single enemy (5 CR3, 2 CR2s) and basically solo'd the whole thing.

I tried to tell the DM he should change things about stats, making everyone use the same generation method, but he doesnt see my point. He says "everything will even out eventually" which I cant even understand how, especially if I decide to MC out of Warlock ever.

[Pelle]

Whatever you do, just make it so everyone has to use the same method.

If the majority wants Point Buy, everyone Point Buys. If majority is for Rolling, everyone is Rolling.

Mixxing the two is grounds for extremely unbalanced parties, and one character being leaps and bounds above the rest, totally throwing off the balance of encounter design. You will need to tailor encounters to challenge both sides of the party, and if the stronger PC(s) go down, then the weaker PCs are just dead.

Im currently in a party like this as a PotB Hexblade Warlock, the DM allowed us to choose standard Point Buy or 4d6b3 reroll 1s. I chose rolling of course, and my lowest stat is a 14, and I have 2 20s and an 18 after the level 4 ASI. Needless to say, I can completely ignore ASIs from here forward, and take nothing but Feats until the campaign is over, as well as multi-class any combo I want, Swashbuckler and Paladin look extremely tempting.

Meanwhile, most of my party is waddling around with maybe a 19 in one primary stat, if they didnt take a Feat, and likely wont have a Feat until 8th level, or more likely 12th level. The only person close to me is a Monk, who managed to have 2 18s after the level 4 ASI, but he is still a Monk, not exactly the most powerful class in the game.

The first encounter we had as a party, was completely 1 sided. The rest of them got ambushed before I joined the group, and nearly all of them were unconcious, or about to be dropped to 0 after their first round of Actions. Once I joined in, I got the killing blow on every single enemy (5 CR3, 2 CR2s) and basically solo'd the whole thing.

I tried to tell the DM he should change things about stats, making everyone use the same generation method, but he doesnt see my point. He says "everything will even out eventually" which I cant even understand how, especially if I decide to MC out of Warlock ever.

That is not an issue with using different methods (rolling and Point Buy), that is an issue with rolling. If everyone were to roll, someone would most likely get worse stats than with point buy, and your problem would be even exaggarated.

Edit: Actually, the reroll 1s makes the rolled option much more powerful than usual. Expected 3.5 Point Buy value of 37. So there is a chance of rolling lower than the standard point buy, but not that big, could still happen though. So then here the main issue is not in using different methods (rolling and point buy), but in offering two widely unbalanced options (average value of rolling being much higher than point buy offered).

[Pex]

That is not an issue with using different methods (rolling and Point Buy), that is an issue with rolling. If everyone were to roll, someone would most likely get worse stats than with point buy, and your problem would be even exaggarated.

Edit: Actually, the reroll 1s makes the rolled option much more powerful than usual. Expected 3.5 Point Buy value of 37. So there is a chance of rolling lower than the standard point buy, but not that big, could still happen though. So then here the main issue is not in using different methods (rolling and point buy), but in offering two widely unbalanced options (average value of rolling being much higher than point buy offered).

You can acknowledge and fix the inherent luck factor by allowing the person who rolled low to reroll, if using 4d6b3. If using 24d6 assign or 2d6 + 6 invert or shameless plug 27-25-23 those methods have built in bad luck modifications.

[ZorroGames]

Unless you are running a from scratch campaign at level 1 how do you prevent someone with a build made from array versus observed die rolling from joining an In Progress game?

With a near TPK in an “AL like” ToA campaign My 6th level character died. I don’t like the concept of surrogate characters (White Box 1974 habit, death happens.) I have no problem not returning to the campaign and starting at level 1 at this point is... pointless... since the survivor character is 7th.

So they recruit another player and everyone else is array (true but not by mandate,) but she/he brings a Tier Appropriate rolled character played for multiple games that has nothing below 12 - instant “Incompatibility?” I just do not see that as logical. Do you ban him/her from using a legitimate character?

EDIT: My 5th experience shows, for good or bad, many new players start in AL games at one of the many FLGS and while most choose point buy locally not all do.

[Pelle]

You can acknowledge and fix the inherent luck factor by allowing the person who rolled low to reroll, if using 4d6b3. If using 24d6 assign or 2d6 + 6 invert or shameless plug 27-25-23 those methods have built in bad luck modifications.

That doesn't have anything to do with my point, though.

(And as discussed earlier, 24d6 assign is just point buy with variable points to spend, it does not mitigate bad luck at all. But yes, those two others of course do since they are designed to give the same total every time.)

[MaxWilson]

Side note: you can't fix power imbalances by using point buy, because not all players are equally-effective at building characters. You could try using pregens, but still, some players are more effective than others at exploiting tactical complexity, using geometry and equipment, knowing when to dodge, threat evaluation, etc.

So if you want to have zero power imbalances, you probably just need to come at it from the other direction: run solo campaigns with only one PC.

Or you could simply accept that power imbalances are not fun imbalances and play the game.

[Tanarii]

So they recruit another player and everyone else is array (true but not by mandate,) but she/he brings a Tier Appropriate rolled character played for multiple games that has nothing below 12 - instant “Incompatibility?” I just do not see that as logical. Do you ban him/her from using a legitimate character?The answer is most modern DMs don't allow transferring of characters from other campaigns into their games. That's a very old-school concept. New players generally make characters some number of levels below the existing characters, or at the same level as the existing characters, depending on the DM & Players views on groups with disparate PC levels.

(Starting all new characters at level 1 even if the others are significantly above that level, and power leveling them, is also an old school concept.)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Or you could simply accept that power imbalances are not fun imbalances and play the game.

Exactly this. Power imbalances aren't desirable, but they will always exist, and they shouldn't be an impediment to enjoying your time at the table.

[ZorroGames]

The answer is most modern DMs don't allow transferring of characters from other campaigns into their games. That's a very old-school concept. New players generally make characters some number of levels below the existing characters, or at the same level as the existing characters, depending on the DM & Players views on groups with disparate PC levels.

(Starting all new characters at level 1 even if the others are significantly above that level, and power leveling them, is also an old school concept.)

Yes, I am “old school” and I wear that badge proudly. :smalltongue:

Okay, seriously. Context matters. :smallsmile:

Except all the games FLGS locally I have seen so far are AL with two to three Tier 1 tables and at most 2, usually 1, Tier 2 tables. Even the one “invite” non-FLGS game was AL (ToA) because of several factors including DM benefits. There have been no cases where I have heard of anyone actually bring a new character for a dead one that is not a surrogate (ToA) or a character that has been level 1 then hurried through other tables to Tier 2.

While that makes sense in one context it sometimes is not an available option.

[Pex]

Side note: you can't fix power imbalances by using point buy, because not all players are equally-effective at building characters. You could try using pregens, but still, some players are more effective than others at exploiting tactical complexity, using geometry and equipment, knowing when to dodge, threat evaluation, etc.

So if you want to have zero power imbalances, you probably just need to come at it from the other direction: run solo campaigns with only one PC.

Or you could simply accept that power imbalances are not fun imbalances and play the game.

Optimizers vs Non-Optimizers.

I know that feeling. As an optimizer myself I've cringed many times seeing other players' characters, but it's not my character and leave it alone. I'll help or give advice if asked, but when my Sorcerer has the highest hit point total I'm crying on the inside.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Optimizers vs Non-Optimizers.

I know that feeling. As an optimizer myself I've cringed many times seeing other players' characters, but it's not my character and leave it alone. I'll help or give advice if asked, but when my Sorcerer has the highest hit point total I'm crying on the inside.

I wouldn't frame this as optimizers v non-optimizers, because there are lots of reasons for power disparities. Some of them have to do with the DM's style or unforseen houserules. Some have to do with the intelligence of the player behind the character - a badly-made character played well can be a lot more effective than a strong character played poorly. And sometimes it's fun to optimize towards something that isn't optimal, if you catch my drift, utilizing all the system mastery at your disposal and working as hard as you can to be the best possible at, like, running over to a caster, stealing his component pouch mid-combat and running away without getting caught.

[MaxWilson]

Optimizers vs Non-Optimizers.

I know that feeling. As an optimizer myself I've cringed many times seeing other players' characters, but it's not my character and leave it alone. I'll help or give advice if asked, but when my Sorcerer has the highest hit point total I'm crying on the inside.

It's deeper than that. You don't have to be a self-proclaimed "optimizer" to know that certain things are just stupid. But that which is obvious to me and you (don't blow 9th level spell slots on Chromatic Orb! Single-classed wizards fighting were-rats should keep their distance and cantrip them to death, not charge into melee!) is not necessarily obvious to everyone.

[ZorroGames]

It's deeper than that. You don't have to be a self-proclaimed "optimizer" to know that certain things are just stupid. But that which is obvious to me and you (don't blow 9th level spell slots on Chromatic Orb! Single-classed wizards fighting were-rats should keep their distance and cantrip them to death, not charge into melee!) is not necessarily obvious to everyone.

First level urchin Wizard in an epic was last to act with a initiative roll of “1” when large group of undead pirates tried swarming ashore via gangplank. All the martials and other casters fell back behind cover and shot/cast. I ran to the gangplank and held it with dagger, ungodly die rolls (for once,) and a street rat attitude.

[MaxWilson]

First level urchin Wizard in an epic was last to act with a initiative roll of “1” when large group of undead pirates tried swarming ashore via gangplank. All the martials and other casters fell back behind cover and shot/cast. I ran to the gangplank and held it with dagger, [uncanny] die rolls (for once,) and a street rat attitude.

Good for you!

But you're fully aware that you were doing something dangerous. That's what makes it heroic, but that's also what (hopefully) makes it rare.

[ZorroGames]

Good for you!

But you're fully aware that you were doing something dangerous. That's what makes it heroic, but that's also what (hopefully) makes it rare.

Not rare enough! :smalleek: second adventure ambushed by Small goblinoids (?) and dire wolf. Said DW moved between Paladin and me, than one shot killed said Paladin (the dice came down with “measles”) and I was sandwiched between DW and 2 Goblins. Dying by OA seemed crass so I stuck to MM and Dagger until the other characters could allow me a gap not filled with Goblins to disengage through.

Hence my current desire for one level of fighter for some medium armor!

Both times I was using utility spells in place of Shield or Mage Armor because of the suspected nature of the adventures. I willl fix that between now and Wizard 3!!

The paraphrased words of the third (?) level Paladin to me at the start of the adventure were along the lines of, “Stay behind me and I will protect you.” Damn Dire Wolf apparently did not adhere to our plan/script...

Poor Paladin was in absolute shock, did not have another character with him, and just refused to roll up another one. He just sat there the rest of the adventure just... watching. I admit it was our first one-shot kill of a martial class character. We had a DW in our first encounter and it died quickly to massing of spells, missiles, and melee. This one was 3 turns rougher.

My blood pressure and pulse was elevvated the rest of the module. :smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

Hahaha, that's awesome. Good luck, I hope you survive!

[ZorroGames]

Thanks.

Before I depart this thread I want to just saythat, while not a number cruncher by trade, I appreciate the effort people put into this.

If, as is common on the internet as a written medium, I upset someone or took offense incorrectly I apologize.

One thing that I found interesting (to the point that I plan to theorycraft some, is that the big discussion of this thread compared an option (almost universal in my 5e experience) of point buy versus dice rolling but no thread has caught my attention concerning the other default non-optional method of generating stats for a character. The “standard array” of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Rather than divert the thread I will depart to create theoretical characters with those numbers before searching for a “standard array” versus (insert method of choice) thread.

[MaxWilson]

One thing that I found interesting (to the point that I plan to theorycraft some, is that the big discussion of this thread compared an option (almost universal in my 5e experience) of point buy versus dice rolling but no thread has caught my attention concerning the other default non-optional method of generating stats for a character. The “standard array” of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

Rather than divert the thread I will depart to create theoretical characters with those numbers before searching for a “standard array” versus (insert method of choice) thread.

It's probably because "standard array" is just a special case of point buy.

[Mongobear]

It's probably because "standard array" is just a special case of point buy.

Yeah, Standard Array is just the 'lazy mans' version of Point Buy, you can generate those scores exactly with standard 27 pt buy, they just use it as a "baanced" array instead of min/max'd arrays like 15/15/15/8/8/8.

To repeat my original point earlier in the thread, doing either stat generation method is fine, as long as everyone does the same method. You allow rolling, make sure everyone is rolling, especially if youre doing anything better/stronger than 4d6b3. You have a higher chance of generating a better array than normal point buy can give you, and it can severly throw off the power balance of the Party.

I suggest you figure out a "target range" of where you want the PCs modifiers to be, say +6 to +8. Have everyone generate their scores, and before applying Racials total the modifiers for everyone. If theyre all within that range, then youre fine, continue on an usual, if somebody is outside of that range, do a little DM fiddling and buff/reduce a stat or two to fit into the range, or have them reroll entirely if theyre really low, or crushed the target and have something crazy like a +12 or something.

In the case of nerfing a player who got super Lucky, maybe give them something to compensate taking their Luck away, usually a Magic Item, or cool trinket or something suffices, atleast in my local groups.

I may be jaded by my local groups on this, but despite people claiming that "having vastly different power levels is more realistic, it will be fine" I have never actually seen that viewpoint hold up. Eventually, everyone develops a little bit of resentment/jealousy/whatever and they start to complain or passive-aggressively try and comment or screw with the powerful player. I would definitely make sure to keep balance if you use a Rolled stat method.

[Roderack]

Forty or so years ago when it was just 3d6 in order and play what you got, we realized that simply didn't work for characters that someone might play for years. So I asked a mathematician friend of mine, who also played, to create a transposition curve. Players would roll their 3d6 and then index their roll using this curve. We bent the left tail up quite severely, shifted the 11-15 part of the curve modestly upward, and left 16-18 alone and allowed players to place their rolls as they chose.

Most of the time players ended up with three rolls between 17-15 and no rolls under 11. Very playable characters.

By the end of my first year running games, I was only running multi-year campaigns with players who were signed up for the long haul. Why in the world saddle someone with a character that was insufficiently strong to play the class they wanted for years?
In the end, as long as they are good enough, the stats don't matter. The quality of the play and the quality of the world in which they play is all that matters.

The fact that in 5.0 as your character matures it automatically gains 10 attribute points, and through the right game items can get another more than another 12 and increase the limit on some stats to 24, clearly indicates that suppressing stats for long campaign games is just a bad idea. One offs are a whole different thing.

[MaxWilson]

The fact that in 5.0 as your character matures it automatically gains 10 attribute points, and through the right game items can get another more than another 12 and increase the limit on some stats to 24, clearly indicates that suppressing stats for long campaign games is just a bad idea. One offs are a whole different thing.

Technically, in 5E you can roll 3s in all stats and eventually wind up with 30s in all stats. In fact there are two distinct methods: magical Manuals (craftable via Xanathar's rules in a fairly reasonable time and a fairly reasonable expense), and ASIs beyond 20th level taken in place of Epic Boons.

Ultimate Iron Man challenge: take an array starting with 3s in every stat. Create a character starting at first level with zero gold, and roleplay in-character in line with your stats in a solo campaign, run by a killer DM who cheats outrageously, until you are 20th level with 30s in all stats, all Epic Boons, and all feats, without dying or even taking a single HP of damage.

[Roderack]

My previous discussion of the translation curve aside, over the years we've moved to other methods. Currently depending on the situation we roll either 4d6 or 5d6 re-rolling 1s only once and pick the best 3. Place as you desire. 1s are re-rolled before totaling.

Here is a typical result (no racial adds) for 4d6 re-rolling 1s once.
12 10 14 13 11 14
14 13 10 10 15 13
17 15 15 13 9 11
16 14 17 12 7 14
11 12 7 18 12 11
10 12 13 10 16 13
———————————-
80 76 76 79 70 76
Attribute adds
———————————
9 7 6 7 2 7

Pretty playable

Here is a typical result for 5d6 re-rolling ones once

15 17 15 14 15 15
13 17 14 17 17 15
16 15 16 16 11 16
15 17 17 13 13 15
15 16 17 8 16 15
16 11 14 15 10 16
____________________
90 93 93 83 82 92
Attribute adds
___________________
13 14 15 10 9 14

Pretty strong characters, but notice in the twelve sets of rolls there was one 18.

Most of the time we use 4d6 re-rolling 1s, but in the end it really doesn't matter for a long campaign game. Also all of my players have played for decades, that is plural, meaning more than 20 years, thousands of hours of role playing. Why constrain the characters for players of that experience? Makes no sense. It's the play that counts.