Quote from: Christopher Brady;883553And that's what makes it superiour to me.  Because that way everyone can focus on their class' strengths.  Rather than look at the fact that one character has all 7s in his highest stats, some other player has four 18s.  The rest of them can't break 12.  So you end up with a player who's Doc Savage, and the rest of them are his sidekicks, with Mr/Mrs. No. 7 being the pet monkey.

If your crew can handle that, I salute them.  But for me?  I want my team to be somewhat equally competent for their field of chose (Like a Fighter will focus on Strength and Constitution, the Wizard on Intelligence and pick one.  So on and so forth.)

1: Outside of 3 or 4e though how is a character with better stats superior? They might hit more often, or save more often. But thats not going to mean anything if the uber character charges into the first battle and get wiped out while the "lesser" characters survive though planning or negotiation.

2: And that is the big thing. Figure out what works best at your table. Which you have. Not mine. Not someone elses unless it sounds like it might work too based on what you know of your group or yourself.

Quote from: Omega;883674In everything except O and BX D&D the chance of getting alot of really high or really low numbers are low. Jan is the first I have ever seen of someone rolling more than one 3 for a stat. And even in the other two you can opt to shuffle. And in at least 5e you get points to add on at key levels so theres a mitigating factor there too.

As repeatedly noted. A player getting really low rolls can ask to re-roll. Most DMs are ok with it. Some even demand it. But some players are perfectly fine with giving such a character a whirl.

Good stats are not a must have.

Rerolls aren't RAW though. If you play it RAW then you just get one roll and that's it.

If it only works with second chances then that suggests something is wrong.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;883745Rerolls aren't RAW though. If you play it RAW then you just get one roll and that's it.

If it only works with second chances then that suggests something is wrong.

Several editions it is RAW.
In OD&D the DM rolled up batches of character stats and handed them out or let the players select from what was present.  
AD&D has several methods and advises re-rolls if things look particularly dire.
BX finishes chargen with advising on rerolling a hopeless character.
5e does not specifically say to re-roll. But the DMG tells the DM to change anything if it is deemed viable. So by RAW. Yes you can re-roll if the DM allows.

Over the decades theres been alot of different approaches. In the end though it is allways the DMs call to allow or not. To judge if stats are too low or even too high. Or to just agree to a re-roll if the player requests.

Hackmaster Basic has the Shopkeeper Rule

Shopkeeper Rule. If your character has no raw single stat of at least 13 or two raw stats of 5 or less, you may name your character and then turn your sheet in to the GM for use as a shopkeeper, peasant or other hapless NPC and reroll your character. Any other set of rolls is playable; you need to play that character for a complete game session before retiring him and introducing a new one (excepting the always-likely event of early mortality during play, of course).

Quote from: Omega;8836941: Outside of 3 or 4e though how is a character with better stats superior? They might hit more often, or save more often. But thats not going to mean anything if the uber character charges into the first battle and get wiped out while the "lesser" characters survive though planning or negotiation.

The Uber Character is rarely a Melee type, so no they don't rush in.  That's what the minions are for.  You know the kids who didn't roll higher than maybe a 12-13 in anything.  Ergo, they get to live the longest, because even if things go tits up, they got the HP and likely magical firepower to stay alive longer than anyone else.

Of course, you have to figure out what to do with Gleek the Pet Monkey, unless of course, you have a player whose totally cool (I did) with being the joke of the table.

Quote from: Omega;8836942: And that is the big thing. Figure out what works best at your table. Which you have. Not mine. Not someone elses unless it sounds like it might work too based on what you know of your group or yourself.

I figured out long ago that everyone having the same total for stats works out best.  Because that way everyone can shine in their chosen 'field'.  Unless it's D&D and the poor sap who goes non-Caster is asking for a challenge.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;883977I figured out long ago that everyone having the same total for stats works out best.  Because that way everyone can shine in their chosen 'field'.  Unless it's D&D and the poor sap who goes non-Caster is asking for a challenge.

Depends on the version of D&D. As long as you dont have a whole bunch of stats in the negative bonus range you still have a viable character as the one with the 18.

Ive seen two Fighter players with STR in the +0 range doing perfectly fine. Some players just dont want uber core stats. Which is where point buy probably suits better.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;883552What do you do if someone rolls all high or all low? Just let them deal with it?

Yes, absolutely.  In my campaigns, there've been a lot of cases where, even rolling 3d6 in order, players have gotten some really strong characters (say, with nothing under 10 and with several +1s, and a +2 or +3). That's fine.

Usually, though, those characters don't turn out to be any more remarkable than other PCs.  They're a little more effective and a little more survivable at the very low levels, but that's about all.

On the other hand, I've also had players generate characters with several negative-modifier stats and no positive-modifier stats.   And those usually turn out to be way more interesting! There's usually more of a sense of the PC wanting to make a story out of their background, to explain how someone weak is going around adventuring.   And those types of characters, if they make it, become much more interesting and cherished by their players.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;883552What do you do if someone rolls all high or all low? Just let them deal with it?

4e of all things had this useful rule if you want a more median group using r4h3.

QuoteMethod 3: roll 4d6 and use highest three, assign as desired.
If the total ability modifiers is lower than +4 or higher than +8 before racial ability adjustments then the DM may rule that that character was too weak or too strong compared to the other characters in the group and decide to adjust scores to fit better within his or her campaign preferences.

Quote from: Omega;8836941: Outside of 3 or 4e though how is a character with better stats superior? They might hit more often, or save more often. But thats not going to mean anything if the uber character charges into the first battle and get wiped out while the "lesser" characters survive though planning or negotiation.

In 2e and I think 1e (I don't want to go through the 1e books) stats had bonuses, and I believe that you need at least 16-18 in the Caster Stats to actually be able to reach 8-9th level spells.  So yeah, stats still matter.

Quote from: Omega;8836942: And that is the big thing. Figure out what works best at your table. Which you have. Not mine. Not someone elses unless it sounds like it might work too based on what you know of your group or yourself.

Outside of the Gronan-style Tables, very few people like having the 'Pet Monkey', when they could have a 4th/5th player be competent.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889436In 2e and I think 1e (I don't want to go through the 1e books) stats had bonuses, and I believe that you need at least 16-18 in the Caster Stats to actually be able to reach 8-9th level spells.  So yeah, stats still matter.



Outside of the Gronan-style Tables, very few people like having the 'Pet Monkey', when they could have a 4th/5th player be competent.

1: In AD&D a magic user needed at least a 9 INT to cast level 4 spells, 10 for level 5, 12 for level 6, 14 for level 7, 16 for level 8 and 18 for level 9. Dont know about 2e as my books are in storage or inaccessible. But if what you noted above is right then sounds like not much, if anything was changed. Clerics had simmilar restrictions based on WIS. WIS 17 to be able to cast level 6 spells and 18 for level 7 spells.

In the end, like all the classes, you either shrugged and played what you could qualify for. Or in the MU case had to accept that you might not be able to cast spells past a certain level. And demi human players were working under greater restrictions. An elven MU was only able to cast up to level 4 spells. (assuming they had at least a 9 INT)

2: In what way? I've seen only once a player bitch about stats. As a player I've had more than a few MU characters with 16 INT, rarely above that. A few below. I'll worry about that IF I make it to level 18. I might quest for an INT raising tome or some other appropriate stat raising method. Or not give a damn and blaze away with what I can cast.

X: One of the ever bemusing things about BX was that you could have a magic user with a 3 INT which meant they could not read or write and had trouble speaking even.

Quote from: Omega;8894471: In AD&D a magic user needed at least a 9 INT to cast level 4 spells, 10 for level 5, 12 for level 6, 14 for level 7, 16 for level 8 and 18 for level 9. Dont know about 2e as my books are in storage or inaccessible. But if what you noted above is right then sounds like not much, if anything was changed. Clerics had simmilar restrictions based on WIS. WIS 17 to be able to cast level 6 spells and 18 for level 7 spells.

In the end, like all the classes, you either shrugged and played what you could qualify for. Or in the MU case had to accept that you might not be able to cast spells past a certain level. And demi human players were working under greater restrictions. An elven MU was only able to cast up to level 4 spells. (assuming they had at least a 9 INT)

That's the thing, most people I grew up playing with (and remember, I mostly started around the mid-80's where the "Hardcore" on this board love to mock us about, by making snide comments about how THEY used to play and have no idea why it's so hard to go back to it, and fuck all these new kids and their new editions...) they WANTED to reach those higher spells.  Like Fireball, Cloudkill Disintegrate and Wish.  ESPECIALLY Wish.

Quote from: Omega;8894472: In what way? I've seen only once a player bitch about stats. As a player I've had more than a few MU characters with 16 INT, rarely above that. A few below. I'll worry about that IF I make it to level 18. I might quest for an INT raising tome or some other appropriate stat raising method. Or not give a damn and blaze away with what I can cast.

X: One of the ever bemusing things about BX was that you could have a magic user with a 3 INT which meant they could not read or write and had trouble speaking even.

Oh, it's more subtle than bitching about stats, or anything else that's obvious.  It's often about how they sigh, after roll a 12-14 (which is pretty good on a D20, assuming of course, that's what you're using) on the die roll and STILL end up missing, and comment about why they should even bother.  Or the ribbing they get from the rest of the party for trying something that actually failed because they can't roll that high (low, for some systems) to even be able to make it possible, but tried anyway.

Or the fact that all they do is give out plans, despite their stats say they have the wisdom/cunning of a rutabaga, that other players have to metagame into a way to explain why THEY had the idea, instead of Pet Monkey (assuming the GM notices or cares.)  Then PM sits back and goes back to their game on their phone or doodling on a napkin or whatever it is they have to do to pass the time, because they can't meaningfully contribute, as their character has the intelligence of a brain dead chimpanzee, the strength of three cauliflowers, the dexterity of a lightning struck treehouse and the chutzpah of a 1970's porn's wallpaper.

In Swords & Six-siders you roll 3 times and take the inverse as your other stats. So a 2, 3 and a 6 nets you the inverses of 5, 4 and 1, respectively.  Then you apply race bonuses.

Guess that's one way to enforce balance with a chance at surprise. But how about we flip those random 3d6's? Take a chance at our triple ace becoming at 18!  Here we go:

4,5,2=11
3,6,1=10
6,6,1=13

Flipped:
3,2,5=10
4,1,6=11
1,1,6=8

Hmmmm...I could have just rolled 3d6 six times and gotten that.:-)

BUT

now that I think about it, I could go at this from the other direction. generate +/-'s, using d6-2:

4,5,2=3,2,5=+2,+3,0,+1,0,+3

Equates to: 14, 16, 10, 12, 10, 16.

Now I add on mods and go.

...and I just added another convoluted way of generating scores. Standard array it is! Let's all have 20s by 5th level!

Just let the dice fall where they may!  There's nothing more interesting than that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;890231Just let the dice fall where they may!  There's nothing more interesting than that.

To some its is anathema.

There are some who rabidly despise anything random. More oft outside RPGing and into the board game realm. But been seeing more of them trickle into the RPG sectors over the years.

Others just dont like random roll for more mild reasons as has been noted often enough here and elsewhere. As allways. Tthe same can be applied to array or point buy or filling cups with water. Some find those really interesting. Others are bored to tears.

The increased stat bonuses make ability generation a bigger deal than before. If we were in the days of 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, 18=+3 and that's that, then I think folks would have fewer issues with the numbers. Everything is mod-driven. A secondary effect of the stat-itself would be nice, something like they do with STR minimums for heavier armors, or gaining additional languages based on the INT score, rather than the Mod.  The numbers themselves are just stepping stones to the mods (in most cases).