Quote from: Omega;801096There is a part of me at cringes at the very real likelyhood that somewhere out there there is a group that has everyone on the standard array and in that group there is one fighter who is pissed because he put his 8 in wisdom and the other fighter put his 12 in wisdom and so has a +1 on Perception checks while he has a -1...

Finally! Someone sees through the inanity of Jibba's premise and Will's examples.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801094"realistically never happen".  Don't bold a quote from me and then conveniently drop the first conditioning word.

Tell you what.  You tell me the odds of coming up with a set of stats like that.  Because if something only has a 1 in a million or billion chance of happening, I feel safe in saying that it will "realistically never happen" and not consider that hyperbole.

Assuming the stats were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12.

Using anydices roller it took just 3 rolls to get 17, 16, 16, 15, 11, 9.
8 more to get 17, 17, 15, 13, 10, 10.
55 more to get another pair 17, 17, 13, 11, 11, 7.
28 more got one last one 18, 17, 16,  12, 12, 12.

So it occurred 4 times in 100 rolls. There were also about six instances of 18, but usually with mostly 12s or lower as the rest.

So the odds of getting stats like that are 4 percent maybee? That is still pretty low though.

Out of curiosity, what else do the stats do? If they only give small bonuses, would there be any advantage to just use those bonuses as the stat? (e.g. Strength +2, Wisdom -1)

Quote from: Majus;801117Out of curiosity, what else do the stats do? If they only give small bonuses, would there be any advantage to just use those bonuses as the stat? (e.g. Strength +2, Wisdom -1)

Yes it would and some systems have done just that.

But traddition ....

I think Tru 20 did that ? (my heartbreaker does too)

the range can be quite large. a 3 give you -4 a 20 gives you +5 on a d20 that is a fairly broad range especially since bounded accuracy means your level and other stuff isn't ever going to totally overwhelm those stats.

So you level from proficiency is only ever going to get to +6 (at 17th level) whereas if you roll well you might get a +5 from a stat (an 18 + a racial uptick) at level 1 (4d6 best 3 comes at at close to 30% to hit an 18 over 6 rolls).

Now you increase stats as you level at the cost of a feat so the difference isn't as stark as it appears.

Stats can also be used as a target number to beat. Though currently the CR system does that instead.

STR though determines how much you can carry and CON effects HP loss  if something drains CON. There are also effects that can drain other stats.

Also stats give some players a general idea of the characters build and aspect.

And if you removed the stats and just had the bonuses whed STILL have the exact same problem. Just even more focused on the bonus vs negative.

I don't like the random rolling in 5E because the perk for levelling up is a stat bonus. Yay you've killed orcs for 3 sessions and congrats, the reward is something you could've gotten at level 1 if your 4d6 had rolled 2 points better.

AD&D's "and you have crappy stats forever" is probably harsher, but actually doesn't bother me as much because a character with low stats doesn't feel specifically like they're just wasting my time.

Quote from: rawma;801074The original post depended on pointing to a bunch of people who would complain if their characters were worse. Except for gamerGoyf, nobody I could find in that other thread* was complaining about the modest differences Sacrosanct posted. So it's completely relevant to bring in the sorts of examples that were in that previous thread. Those were large differences, besides some of the posts from gamerGoyf (who does not appear to have had a consistent point of view, but seemingly wouldn't have been unhappy with any of the characters listed in the original post of this thread).

*OK, I could still only bring myself to read about half the thread, so maybe you could find an example from another poster. But it wasn't part of the half I read.



gamerGoyf appears to be an outlier, unless you mean people posting on another website entirely; I didn't look at the linked thread. And there's little honest point to addressing an honest question here to people not on this forum.

If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

Again, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

Bren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801143If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

Again, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

Bren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

Thus far, the OP has not acknowledged the possibility of any position between the extremes of "not caring about other PC abilities whatsoever" and "fun is ruined by differences in abilities".  Basic common sense says that the overwhelming majority of people are somewhere between the extremes.  

The OP seems to be pushing the position that players should have no emotional attachment to the differences in PC ability scores whatsoever.  PC stoicism.  I do not agree with that position.  If the OP acknowledges there are reasonable position on the continuum between stoicism and ruined fun, he can say so himself.

Quote from: Omega;801101Assuming the stats were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12.
.

Why would you assume this:

20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14


Were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12?

If you were human, they would be 19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 13
Most other races have a +2 with a subrace of another +1, meaning the original rolls would be 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14

Pretty sure the odds of rolling those are much smaller than your example.  So yeah, I stick my assertion that those stats are realistically impossible without that being hyperbole any more than telling someone that they won't realistically ever win the lottery is hyperbole.

What is hyperbole is to say that people feeling gimped and/or cheated is justified when the other PC has stats like 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801153What is hyperbole is to say that people feeling gimped and/or cheated is justified when the other PC has stats like 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14.

This is noticeably less rhetoric than you have been using.  Go back, reread your OP, and you will see that your original position contains significantly more rhetoric than this statement.

Yes, I feel somewhat miffed when one PC has those stats and I am rocking a 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8.  

I have a different emotional response to this issue than you.  People have emotional responses to things on the continuum from stoicism to completely loosing it.  Most people will hanot be on the extremes of the continuum.  What deeper understanding are you looking for?

Quote from: Old One Eye;801152Thus far, the OP has not acknowledged the possibility of any position between the extremes of "not caring about other PC abilities whatsoever" and "fun is ruined by differences in abilities".  Basic common sense says that the overwhelming majority of people are somewhere between the extremes.  

The OP seems to be pushing the position that players should have no emotional attachment to the differences in PC ability scores whatsoever.  PC stoicism.  I do not agree with that position.  If the OP acknowledges there are reasonable position on the continuum between stoicism and ruined fun, he can say so himself.

Fair enough. I may projecting too much from the character suicide thread, both onto Sacro's intent in the OP and onto the responses of others.

Quote from: Old One Eye;801155This is noticeably less rhetoric than you have been using.  Go back, reread your OP, and you will see that your original position contains significantly more rhetoric than this statement.

Yes, I feel somewhat miffed when one PC has those stats and I am rocking a 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8.  

I have a different emotional response to this issue than you.  People have emotional responses to things on the continuum from stoicism to completely loosing it.  Most people will hanot be on the extremes of the continuum.  What deeper understanding are you looking for?

I don't think you're getting the point.  You wouldn't be miffed at someone having those stats because it's not realistically possible for anyone to have those stats in the first place.

I've repeated this several times.  If the examples you're bringing forth as justification for your hurt feelings don't ever happen, then I think that's not much basis to argue against or blame random stat generation.

My second part is that if someone does have an extra +1 somewhere (the more likely scenarios), you wouldn't even notice unless you sat there and reverse calculated all of their die rolls.  And if you do that and still feel like you're gimped or cheated?  Frankly you need to grow up.  Or stop playing a game with a random element in it all together.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801143If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

So this is railing against those sinners at the other website and preaching to the choir here? Actually explaining that context in response to examples that depend on a wider definition of "way higher" would have helped, instead of just railing at them. The fun is ruined if the difference is big enough; if the difference is big enough then it's hard not to notice.

QuoteAgain, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

If we limit discussion to cases where nothing bad has happened, then we conclude that nothing bad has ever happened, so how dare you complain about bad things happening! The entire point is that worse things can happen; the original question is a strawman if +1 only in fourth through sixth best characteristics is "way higher".

QuoteBren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

I also pointed out that other totals reveal bonuses, unless your group is never revealing any numbers (the DM rolls everything, in which case he probably rolled the characteristics too; or you spend a lot of time reporting damage by passing notes). So I can know someone's combat stat by observing the minimum and maximum damage they roll with the same weapon I have. And that was how jibbajibba's player got upset over being overshadowed in their own specialty (ranged damage). (If it is that secretive, then I'll take greater efforts to figure it out statistically just because secrets provoke that in me.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801153Why would you assume this:

20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14


Were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12?

If you were human, they would be 19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 13
Most other races have a +2 with a subrace of another +1, meaning the original rolls would be 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14

20, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14 is that you said in the OP?
I was going on the basis they were playing human and used a stat up instead of a feat at level 4.
remove the human bonus and the stat up and you get  17, 17, 16, 15, 13, 13? I goofed on the last two... But that is still in the range I got. on the first 100 rolls.

The 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14 Im not even going to waste the time trying to figure as yes, its less than 1%, Im pretty sure alot less.

Closest I got in another 100 rolls was 18, 16, 16. 16, 10, 11

On an unrelated note, one of the rolls was all 14s... weird...

Quote from: rawma;801158So this is railing against those sinners at the other website and preaching to the choir here? Actually explaining that context in response to examples that depend on a wider definition of "way higher" would have helped, instead of just railing at them. The fun is ruined if the difference is big enough; if the difference is big enough then it's hard not to notice.

I'm not here to defend anyone's decision or approach to rail against anything. It should be blatantly obvious from all of the responses that nobody was preaching to the choir here, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

Quote from: rawma;801158If we limit discussion to cases where nothing bad has happened, then we conclude that nothing bad has ever happened, so how dare you complain about bad things happening! The entire point is that worse things can happen; the original question is a strawman if +1 only in fourth through sixth best characteristics is "way higher".

Who was limiting discussions to cases where nothing bad has ever happened? I don't have a clue what channel you are watching. At all.

Aside from the concrete example of stat variation, or "inferiority", that Sacro gave, which was a useful barometer of what he clearly finds acceptable, the following is what his question actually was.

QuoteSo honest question for those who have made those arguments. If you don't know what stats another PC has, how does that ruin your fun? Because from what I can see, it really doesn't impact the actual game play of your PC if you don't know how many +'s they have. When you're rolling a random result between a 1 and 20, and extra +1 or +2 won't even be noticeable unless you're really paying attention and doing the math in your head, and why would you? It's not your PC.

So his question had nothing to do with his sample situation. Rather it was about how/why/if people notice the minimum possible stat difference (i.e a +1 modifier). To own up to it, he did say +1 OR +2, so the minimum possible thing is really a slight stretch of what he said on my part. But I still think it's a good core question. And in that context this isn't really an open set issue where we can play neghborhoods-of-arbitrary size game.

Quote from: rawma;801158I also pointed out that other totals reveal bonuses, unless your group is never revealing any numbers (the DM rolls everything, in which case he probably rolled the characteristics too; or you spend a lot of time reporting damage by passing notes). So I can know someone's combat stat by observing the minimum and maximum damage they roll with the same weapon I have. And that was how jibbajibba's player got upset over being overshadowed in their own specialty (ranged damage). (If it is that secretive, then I'll take greater efforts to figure it out statistically just because secrets provoke that in me.)

I only had the one cookie to give out on thyla count. Bren got to it first, and made that good point succinctly. I'm sorry there's no second place cookie, but I can acknowledge that you also contributed if that helps.