Yes, Rag... there's a fair chance to get above the expected average. A roughly 50% chance, in fact. So, three of your sets were at or below average expectations, and three were above - not seeing nay argument against rolling so far.
Back to the time question then: since you've said about 6 rolls in 30 seconds (given that you need the time to roll, cognitively process what you're seeing, confirm it doesn't have what you want, and then re-roll), let's be generous and make the maths simpler and say 5 rolls in 20 seconds. Thus, 15 per minute. So... to roll the expected average of 10000 rolls you'd need to reasonably expect a roll of three 18s, you'd need to spend a little over 11 hours doing it, with no breaks, no stops, no slowdowns and no rest. If someone wants to do that for a benefit that will be neutralised by eighth level, I can't really see any complaint there. It's silly, and self-destructive, but it's also their call.
[quote=KingTiki]The Wizard that rolls 4d6 drop lowest and gets 3 18s can easily have max INT, DEX and CON at level 4.
Well, yes INT was a poor choice, CHA works fine tho. I mistakenly thought that vHumans had 3ASIs.
Point stands anyway as we have 4 classes that really really thrive off 20CHA + 2 other 20s (either STR or DEX).
If they implement the TCoE rules then any class and attribute combination is possible. But at least CHA works with just the PHB.
Point stands that your claim of making a character with three 20s at level 4 off a three 18 roll set is false. There is no 'easy' way to do that, and I'm not certain there is
Any way to do that legally.
Again, I'll ask a second time: Please enlighten me how you're getting that.
Obviously point buy and standard array.
I was just explaining to you the mayor advantages that a lucky stat roll can have. And especially with the bounded accuracy environment (which you kinda forgot about?)
No, you gave a disingenuous account of someone with three 20s at level 4. As well as being, to my knowledge, impossible, the three 18 case that it's built off is one I've already discarded as irrelevant to consideration due to its odds being more than one in ten thousand. We're discussing the practical and common reality of a 4d6 drop lowest providing a player with one 18, which will generally happen about once every ten roll sets. In point to that, I explained quite directly the ways in which the supposedly over-powered place of rolling was not so when compared to another character with the same play-values using ability scores reflected by another system.
Bounded accuracy is precisely WHY the difference disappears very quickly and becomes a non-issue.
In other older systems, there was no bounding - your 20 start became mid-twenties, became thirties, became the chase for a 50 stat by the end of a campaign, and it was ridiculous. A head start *Stayed* with you all game in those systems, and you *Always* had and kept that leg up, all the way through.
In 5e, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen, because, as stated, multiple times now... even if you start with an 18 roll that you make into a 20 at level 1, that's it: you're at cap... and in just a very small handful of quick levels time, your colleague who didn't roll so well, or who used a fixed system, will *Also* be at cap for their important stat, and the edge is neutralised. It doesn't go any higher, and your initial leg-up edge is gone.
Anyway: you asked a question, I answered. You then moved the goalposts around. I find this tiring.
No, I've done no such thing. My contention is as it has been from the outset here: The claim that rolling for stats stands to make unbalanced and unfair characters compared to players that didn't roll is utterly ridiculous, especially so since the edge you might gain from a good roll set disappears by fourth level.
We're talking about roll sets, and a decent portion of the discussion has revolved around comparisons to other players using different methods, because most folks here seem to agree that quibbling over it in terms of single player is pretty pointless. I used the word 'table' by habit, and for that I'll apologise, but it does not change any element of what I said; it's a group of friends playing a game together.
Edit:
Thanks to ArvGuy for producing that roll sheet - I actually went looking for a generator I could use online to quickly generate a 10k set of 4d6 drop lowest rolls and couldn't fine one... I'm not as versed in whipping such things up in excel as I probably should be. I appreciate you taking the time to do it! That 100 sum is a pretty impressive roll. Mostly 17s, so that's begging for a standard human race choice ^.^
I feel like the numbers you present support both sides to the debate in different ways; we can see from the generation that the likelihood of getting an extremely high stat line across the board is not good; it's not a likely occurrence at all, although it's slightly more likely than getting a full set of terrible rolls. The idea of it coughing up multiple 18s and creating characters capping multiple scores from the outset or very early on is also a pretty unlikely, nigh on foolish worry. At the same time, it does also demonstrate the greater swing potential of rolling, compared to the more rigid systems - and that swing is a consideration in games (if it wasn't, this debate wouldn't happen). Thanks for putting it together. I wouldn't mind seeing the full set, if you've got it to hand (and the excel algebra you used to generate it...)
