TheRPGSite

Which method do you use in your games for character creation?

Which one do you think works best?

I normally go with stat array, but you might feel that it's too constraining to express your character. In which case you'd go with point buy. Or if you like the thrill of randomness, rolling.

I use point buy, but I'm mostly in organized play where it's the only option (although the standard array can be bought with point buy, I think?).

Although you can't start a character with an 18 or higher by point buy, I think that's mostly a good thing; it leaves room to advance later. But you don't get unusually high or low arrays, and those can be fun to play too. In particular you can't start with anything below 8, which seems a bigger loss (since it's not often that it would go down).

Rolling, always rolling.

Stat array.

Not only is it simple and fair, it's also useful in reinforcing the abstraction inherent in the stats.

That is, if you are picking 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, you are really just prioritising what you are good at, and one thing that your aren't good at. The stats themselves mean nothing beyond that really. And it must be noted that you add to stats through levelling up these days, so you can see really progresses in the bonuses provided.

Random isn't fair. Many groups end up allowing rerolls if somebody rolls appallingly badly - but what can they do when someone rolls ridiculously high? In the dynamic of a balanced party it's unfair.

Points Buy encourages a boring level of min/maxing strategizing by some players. I had one character declare how cool it was he could get 13 on every Ability ('No weaknesses'). The point that his character was utterly uninteresting was lost on him.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;877582Stat array.

Not only is it simple and fair, it's also useful in reinforcing the abstraction inherent in the stats.

That is, if you are picking 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, you are really just prioritising what you are good at, and one thing that your aren't good at. The stats themselves mean nothing beyond that really. And it must be noted that you add to stats through levelling up these days, so you can see really progresses in the bonuses provided.

Random isn't fair. Many groups end up allowing rerolls if somebody rolls appallingly badly - but what can they do when someone rolls ridiculously high? In the dynamic of a balanced party it's unfair.

Points Buy encourages a boring level of min/maxing strategizing by some players. I had one character declare how cool it was he could get 13 on every Ability ('No weaknesses'). The point that his character was utterly uninteresting was lost on him.

Is the lack of fairness always a bad thing? Besides that is it really all that unfair? I mean if it's random via dice then really it's just a matter of probability in that dice range, which is the same regardless of player. I'd say in the context of a game that's fair enough. Particularly if you are doing something along the lines of 4d6 drop the lowest.

Random rolls in character generation are unfair because you are stuck with them.

If you make a random roll in normal gameplay, you can say it's just the same probability roll as anyone else.....but there is always another random roll ahead to look forward too. In the case of chargen, you could just end up with a character you don't want to play, or alongside another player whose character is simply better than yours.

I do see the fun in just taking pot luck every now and then, and am not arguing for the whole idea to be removed. But in my D&D campaigns, these days, stat array is the way to go (and the players themselves are happy with it too).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;877599Random rolls in character generation are unfair because you are stuck with them.

If you make a random roll in normal gameplay, you can say it's just the same probability roll as anyone else.....but there is always another random roll ahead to look forward too. In the case of chargen, you could just end up with a character you don't want to play, or alongside another player whose character is simply better than yours.

I do see the fun in just taking pot luck every now and then, and am not arguing for the whole idea to be removed. But in my D&D campaigns, these days, stat array is the way to go (and the players themselves are happy with it too).

Different perspectives I suppose, no right way to game just different kinds of fun.

Quote from: rawma;877578(although the standard array can be bought with point buy, I think?).

Although you can't start a character with an 18 or higher by point buy, I think that's mostly a good thing; it leaves room to advance later. But you don't get unusually high or low arrays, and those can be fun to play too. In particular you can't start with anything below 8, which seems a bigger loss (since it's not often that it would go down).

Yes. you can recreate the array with 5es point buy.

A human can hit 16 out the gate, some of the demi-humans can hit 17. With the stat cap of 20 this is important if feats are not being allowed as you will hit the cap of your primary at some point.

As for personal pref.
I like rolling. Either O/BX's roll 3 and shuffle, or AD&Ds roll 4 keep three highest.

But in the campaign I am currently playing in with Jan and Kefra. Once it wraps up we have discussed playing with new characters created with point buy and everyone the same class. We havent decided yet what class.

My online 5e game uses the default array, which works great. My tabletop game uses point buy, or pregens with the default array.

IME rolling best 3 of 4d6 in order works great in my Classic D&D campaign to create organic-feeling PCs, and there INT 10 on a Wizard is no barrier to greatness. It works fine in AD&D too. But the 3e/4e/5e attribute modifiers (12 = +1, 14 + +2, 16= +3, 18 = +4 etc) work terribly with rolling, creating underpowered & overpowered PCs. It's particularly bad with arrange-as-desired, which might as well be 'variable point buy'.

The modifiers may indeed be a major factor. They aren't D&D5e, but the random rolling chargens of classic D&D, RuneQuest and Traveller work largely because the bonuses only come into play at the highest or lowest points of the scale. The mechanical difference between, say, an 8 and a 13 is negligible.

I let the players choose between all three.

However, last group (D&D 5e) had a tiny bit of friction because the resident power gamer rolled up, in front of everyone: 18, 17, 17, 15, 14 and 12, before any racial adjustments. Not much to do about that, but it makes me more likely to suggest point-buy in the future.

Quote from: Necrozius;877693I let the players choose between all three.

However, last group (D&D 5e) had a tiny bit of friction because the resident power gamer rolled up, in front of everyone: 18, 17, 17, 15, 14 and 12, before any racial adjustments. Not much to do about that, but it makes me more likely to suggest point-buy in the future.

You don't mandate one method for consistency?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877713You don't mandate one method for consistency?

Now I probably will (because of that crazy high stat array that I mentioned). It would be more fair and, as you said, consistent. Less wild ranges between PC stats.

Random or Point Buy, depending on the type of campaign.

Standard Array tends to favor non-humans as you don't get the "3 or more odd number stats to warrant non-variant human." And even variant human benefits from Point Buy over Standard Array because you can cook up two 15s easily for a solid two 16s start. You end up wasting less points in floating odd numbers, and you can focus remaining point-buy on your weakpoints within the ever-popular big three saves of  DEX, CON, WIS. Every class starts with respect to one of those, and CYA for the remaining two big saves is rarely a bad idea.

Quote from: Opaopajr;877724Random or Point Buy, depending on the type of campaign.

Standard Array tends to favor non-humans as you don't get the "3 or more odd number stats to warrant non-variant human." And even variant human benefits from Point Buy over Standard Array because you can cook up two 15s easily for a solid two 16s start. You end up wasting less points in floating odd numbers, and you can focus remaining point-buy on your weakpoints within the ever-popular big three saves of  DEX, CON, WIS. Every class starts with respect to one of those, and CYA for the remaining two big saves is rarely a bad idea.

What type do you use random for and what type for point buy.

I tend to prefer point buy (since I mostly play TFT and GURPS) but always with limits, suggestions and oversight on what is bought. I usually offer a variety of package deals that have different point totals, which tend to represent different types of character backgrounds.

That is, I prefer characters to be built to have values that make sense for the character.

Array or point buy. I have one game in which we rolled and the person who rolled well chose a Monk and is reaping the rewards way too much.

I drift between which way to go, to be honest, over my history with D&D.

Right now I'm running a campaign more or less as part of the Adventurer thing they do - you can see how tightly I'm tied to the program with how I don't remember what it's called - and the basic array they start you with seems to work well enough.  You're really good at a couple things, average at a few things, and suck at one thing.  It works well enough for a program where characters have to be created without trust issues, and with classes not seeming to depend as much on multiple high stats, it works nicely in 5th edition.

As I continue to run 5th edition, I continue to like it more.  We'll see what trips me up in the future, though.

Quote from: Necrozius;877693I let the players choose between all three.

However, last group (D&D 5e) had a tiny bit of friction because the resident power gamer rolled up, in front of everyone: 18, 17, 17, 15, 14 and 12, before any racial adjustments. Not much to do about that, but it makes me more likely to suggest point-buy in the future.

Personally, this is why whenever people want to do random, I let them all roll, but choose the player's roll to use.

So if you get a roll like the one above, EVERY player can use it and arrange it to taste.  It's a more fair way, and it promotes a less adversarial game style.

I'm sure Gronan will pop on by and say how we should 'Suck it up, bitches!' nd stick to 3d6 in order, cuz his way is the one true way, simply because he was at Gary's table for a few years, but in a game that's supposed to be cooperative, creating a power disparity among players creates some resentment, not always at each other, but definitely at their own luck.

For old D&D I devised a way of rolling random stats (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/05/stat-generation-random-but-fair-this.html) with d6 which gave the same overall distribution but where the 6 stats always added up to 63. This gives lots of random variation with characters without some being massively better or worse than the rest.

A similar but simpler solution would be to choose a number of different point-buy choices and then people roll to get one at random.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;877765For old D&D I devised a way of rolling random stats (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/05/stat-generation-random-but-fair-this.html) with d6 which gave the same overall distribution but where the 6 stats always added up to 63. This gives lots of random variation with characters without some being massively better or worse than the rest.

As a math geek, I've got to say I really like that method.  You've got the excitement of rolling dice, the chance of getting an 18 isn't any higher than normal, but you can't easily roll a terrible character.  Good job!

Quote from: jcfiala;877769As a math geek, I've got to say I really like that method.  You've got the excitement of rolling dice, the chance of getting an 18 isn't any higher than normal, but you can't easily roll a terrible character.  Good job!

Thanks :-)

So, in the context of 5e, from a player perspective, I have a preference for the random roll method, but find that I don't mind the standard array or point buy method.

Historically, the folks I play with don't seriously mind the occasional stat disparity, and it doesn't seem to be a killer in 5e. There's bitching and moaning, sure, but it's not serious/fun-killing.

From a DM perspective, I thought it would be a no-brainer to just let anyone use the method that they liked best.  The statistical difference, to me, is not enough to care much about it.  Do what makes you happy.

But, hold the phone. It was on this forum that I learned of people who dislike random roll over point buy, but if random roll were an option and another player would maybe take that option, they felt compelled to take it themselves because of the slight statistical advantage, and their fun would thereby be ruined because of the lack of fairness inherent in the system.

Which just goes to show you that chocolate tracksuit anaerobic fusillade, I guess.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877763I'm sure Gronan will pop on by and say how we should 'Suck it up, bitches!' nd stick to 3d6 in order, cuz his way is the one true way, simply because he was at Gary's table for a few years, but in a game that's supposed to be cooperative, creating a power disparity among players creates some resentment, not always at each other, but definitely at their own luck.

Actually its 3d6 in order. Then shuffle points within certain limiters. Much like BX D&D.

Personally I wouldnt say it creates a power disparity as it is the class that really matters and how you play. My Magic user with 16 INT outlived at least three other MUs with 18+ INT scores. Be more concerned about your AC and HP. those 18 stats do you all of zero good if you rolled 1 HP.

And point buy can be just as problematic because a player can just min/max and start out in 5e with 15/15/15/8/8/8 before racial bonuses. Another player who spread their points more interestingly could feel resentful of the min/maxer.

But as with everything. Some players can and will obsess over something.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877713You don't mandate one method for consistency?

In the group Im DMing 5e for after some deliberation I had everyone use one system where before I was going to let them choose. The reason was one player wasnt satisfied with the point buy system and obsessed for a while about being allowed to exceed it to 18. A minor irk. But enough to say fuck it everyone rolls.

In the group I am a player with Kefra and Jan it was a mix. And Kefra did a roll in order and selected class based on what she got. I do that fairly often too. with maybe swapping two stat positions.

Know your group and their expectations.

With my group, 5e comes with "new school" expectations, with people thinking up elaborate backstories or reveling in the badassery of their Dragonborn Vengeance Paladin or Drow Tome Warlock, so I'd use point-buy or array.

But if I was running a hardcore old school hexcrawl or megadungeon game with 5e (it wouldn't be my first choice but it's totally doable), where life is cheap and ten-foot-poles see a lot of use, random roll FTW.

Quote from: Omega;877791In the group I am a player with Kefra and Jan it was a mix. And Kefra did a roll in order and selected class based on what she got. I do that fairly often too. with maybe swapping two stat positions.

Are there any other players in that group? Do they have names too? :p

Quote from: S'mon;877796Are there any other players in that group? Do they have names too? :p

Why? Does it bother you that players might have names?

Currently just the three of us. And the DM. Two other players I've mentioned in other threads are infrequent to the point I havent heard from one in months. The other had to bow out due to long term family crisis.

Quote from: Omega;877803Why? Does it bother you that players might have names?

But it comes off as a little odd that you're willing to drop names.  I'm assuming you have permission or they don't care enough to be told to a bunch of strangers from around the world, but it's still odd.

Sometimes, I wonder if we're expected to know them well enough to be on a named basis with them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877806But it comes off as a little odd that you're willing to drop names.  I'm assuming you have permission or they don't care enough to be told to a bunch of strangers from around the world, but it's still odd.

Sometimes, I wonder if we're expected to know them well enough to be on a named basis with them.

What an odd thing to find odd. By consistently using their names, I can easily recall that Kefra is a druid and Jan is a fighter (or, um ,ranger ?).  Ironically, I can't remember what Omega plays. I don't recall if those are people names or character names, and I guess I don't care.

The way you know them well enough to know their names is by their names being used.

We use 30d6 arrange however you want.

Quote from: Omega;877803Why? Does it bother you that players might have names?

Currently just the three of us. And the DM. Two other players I've mentioned in other threads are infrequent to the point I havent heard from one in months. The other had to bow out due to long term family crisis.

OK thanks. It just seems you mention their names in every post. Generally people don't refer to the names of players they play with unless they're likely to be known to the reader.

Edit: Like Christopher says, it comes across as odd. I wouldn't mention the names of my players/fellow players (esp female players) or GMs on a board unless they were also posting, in which case I'd probably use their board moniker not their real name.

I just had an idea for a good way to roll stats.

What if instead of 4d6 drop lowest, you do:

5d4, drop lowest.

I tried out the spread on anydice.com and it actually works pretty well. Most results are 10-14, so you avoid getting 18s and 7s everywhere.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877806But it comes off as a little odd that you're willing to drop names.  I'm assuming you have permission or they don't care enough to be told to a bunch of strangers from around the world, but it's still odd.

Sometimes, I wonder if we're expected to know them well enough to be on a named basis with them.

Quote from: S'mon;877849OK thanks. It just seems you mention their names in every post. Generally people don't refer to the names of players they play with unless they're likely to be known to the reader.

Edit: Like Christopher says, it comes across as odd. I wouldn't mention the names of my players/fellow players (esp female players) or GMs on a board unless they were also posting, in which case I'd probably use their board moniker not their real name.

I dont expect anyone to know the players I mention unless youve played with them too at some point.

I mention them by name to both identify who I am talking about in a situation and out of respect for the characters I've played with or GMed for. They also happen to be good examples of the variety in player types along with Daern, Nox and James from the group I DM for. And for the curious Daern likes point buy and the other two are fine with whatever.

As I mentioned in an older thread, one bit of bemusement for me is that Daern does not like random rolls. And yet rolled up a pretty good character. And currently Id swear his dice are magic as they have been rolling absurdly well every session. We all use dice towers.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;877863I just had an idea for a good way to roll stats.

What if instead of 4d6 drop lowest, you do:

5d4, drop lowest.

I tried out the spread on anydice.com and it actually works pretty well. Most results are 10-14, so you avoid getting 18s and 7s everywhere.

er... 4d4 (after dropping a d4) gives you a spread of 4 to 16? You can not roll a 17 or 18 with that method.

Checking AnyDice looks like the peak of the bell using a r5h4 via d4 is 11-12.

Here is the link and code.
http://anydice.com/program/22f5 (http://anydice.com/program/22f5)

output [highest 4 of 5d4]

The peak of standard r4h3 via d6 is 13

Quote from: Natty Bodak;877824I can easily recall that Kefra is a druid and Jan is a fighter (or, um ,ranger ?).  

Ironically, I can't remember what Omega plays. I don't recall if those are people names or character names, and I guess I don't care.

1: Correct. Jan is currently a half-orc fighter. The halfling ranger got eaten by a giant frog.

2: Warlock in 5e. Magic User in BX & AD&D. (Not counting occasional mentions of the reincarnation retired bard.)

Basically what the DM wants, though I don't mind either way. When I DM, it depends on the edition and style. If I want more variety in my PCs, we roll 4d6, drop the lowest and sometimes   in order.

Quote from: Omega;877889er... 4d4 (after dropping a d4) gives you a spread of 4 to 16? You can not roll a 17 or 18 with that method.

Checking AnyDice looks like the peak of the bell using a r5h4 via d4 is 11-12.

Here is the link and code.
http://anydice.com/program/22f5 (http://anydice.com/program/22f5)

output [highest 4 of 5d4]

The peak of standard r4h3 via d6 is 13

That's what I meant. It's more like point buy or stat array because those max out at 15, not 18. And dropping lowest means you won't get super low numbers except very rarely.

So you still get the randomness of rolling but a spread that's closer to the other methods.

Maybe you could add in that any number below 8 becomes 8 as well.

Quote from: Sommerjon;877828We use 30d6 arrange however you want.

I'll arrange them with the sixes on the top ;-)

Quote from: JoeNuttall;877916I'll arrange them with the sixes on the top ;-)

So do I.

(http://www.cliquenabend.de/images/db/3820_360x240.jpg)

Now that I have determined Strength... :eek:

Quote from: Skywalker;877752Array or point buy. I have one game in which we rolled and the person who rolled well chose a Monk and is reaping the rewards way too much.

Isn't that the reward for gambling on rolling the dice? Would there be feelings of leniency if the rolls were pretty poor?

Quote from: Batman;878184Isn't that the reward for gambling on rolling the dice? Would there be feelings of leniency if the rolls were pretty poor?

Sometimes players complaints against rolling boil down to. "Its ok if I take a chance and get good. But its not ok if someone else took a chance and got good." Rare will you see one of these paragons of gameplay complain when they rolled great and everyone else rolled poor.

Few players will overly complain about roll and arrange. Its roll in order that some baulk at. Others love it. The more control over the random you give a player the less likely they are to baulk.

And then some dont like point buy. Or array. And so on.

If you roll really poorly ask to roll again. Some will allow some wont.

Quote from: Batman;878184Isn't that the reward for gambling on rolling the dice? Would there be feelings of leniency if the rolls were pretty poor?

It was more of a case that the rolls were made first and that effected the class choice.  Monk's benefit much more than other classes from high ability scores. So, not sure if there is a reward for gambling is relevant :)

That is kinda how it was in AD&D as well. You needed really high stats to qualify for some of the side classes. So those side classes had high stats.

As for the 5e Monk. DEX and WIS are the primarys. You can get by without STR as you can use DEX instead for combat. CON is useful. But CON is useful to everyone so not really an issue there. For some needing two stats to be more effective would be seen as a drawback.

And some of us just dont see high stats as a must have.

Quote from: Omega;878315That is kinda how it was in AD&D as well. You needed really high stats to qualify for some of the side classes. So those side classes had high stats.

As for the 5e Monk. DEX and WIS are the primarys. You can get by without STR as you can use DEX instead for combat. CON is useful. But CON is useful to everyone so not really an issue there. For some needing two stats to be more effective would be seen as a drawback.

And some of us just dont see high stats as a must have.

The Monk is the biggest victim of Attribute Deficiency Disorder, especially in 3e.

There were three stats you needed, as pointed out, Dex, Wis and Con.  Which at level 1 is not easy to get, but somewhat doable.  But as the game system relies on a scaling bonus system for attack and defense, the Monk class with its inability to benefit from a lot of the systems that actually gave the scaling system, namely magical items with stat boosts, it was often a sub-optimal choice to play.

They fixed it slightly with 3.5 but not enough to make it a viable combat class.

In 5e, it still has that same problem, but tries to fix it by giving it in game mechanics to help mitigate the fact that it's a less optimal melee fighter.

I've always liked point buy, because this approach theoretically enables me/my players to create a version of the character we have in our heads. Except when too few points are available or certain conceits aren't really offered by the system. Even so, this approach makes it more likely that you can play the character you fancy playing, while also making the game feel "fairer".

That said, as I get older and time to play gets scarcer, I can totally appreciate the value in sitting down, throwing some dice, the idea of saying "right, I have the stats to play a wizard. I'm calling him Elmo" and then getting stuck into the game is increasingly appealing. Emergent characterisation doesn't have to be any less valid or interesting (and may* encourage greater variation in play styles).

(*Idle speculation)

I don't know if it was mentioned before, but since different players have different tastes (and some have tantrums), it can work well to offer a choice of character creation methods, with some apples/oranges trade-offs. I regularly do this even with point-buy systems, including offering to let people roll (though I tend to tweak the odds of scores, since the games I play - TFT&GURPS - have the attribute scores very important).

E.g. a GM might offer a choice between:

* Draw a random pregen from set A of the DM's pregens.
* Choose a pregen from set B of the DM's pregens.
* Choose a generic pregen from set C, and personalize it.
* Choose a stat array from a list and personalize it.
* Point buy, slightly less point total than stat arrays have.
* Roll random 3d6 in order and take what you get. GM gives some other boon.
* Roll 3d6 but pick which roll is for which attribute.
* Roll 4d6 drop lowest die.
* Roll random 3d6 character, up to three times, pick one.
* Roll 3d6 and pick which attribute, with up to 6 re-rolls, but GM gives some major starting disadvantage (e.g. your character starts as a slave, a wanted criminal, or has enemies hunting him down, or is cursed, or something).
etc

At this point theres quite a few options for generating stats. And you can cull a few more from other RPGs.

As mentioned in another stat gen thread here. One I thought was neet was the system in Starships & Spacemen.

Roll in order. But you assign each stat as you roll. So say you roll a 10. Do you put it in a tertiary stat or an unimportant one? A bit of press-your-luck element there.

Though still my personal favorite is from BX and OD&D. Roll in order and then shuffle points on a 2-for-1 basis. Want to bump your 14 STR to 18? Thats going to cost you 8 points from other stats.

I much prefer rolling. I like surprises.

Quote from: Omega;878486At this point theres quite a few options for generating stats. And you can cull a few more from other RPGs.

As mentioned in another stat gen thread here. One I thought was neet was the system in Starships & Spacemen.

Roll in order. But you assign each stat as you roll. So say you roll a 10. Do you put it in a tertiary stat or an unimportant one? A bit of press-your-luck element there.

Though still my personal favorite is from BX and OD&D. Roll in order and then shuffle points on a 2-for-1 basis. Want to bump your 14 STR to 18? Thats going to cost you 8 points from other stats.

That could be interesting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;878539That could be interesting.

That 2 for 1 trade was a lot easier to pull off harmlessly in AD&D than in 3rd edition or later design. Before 3rd, there was, in the vast majority of situations, no meaningful difference between a 14 stat and a 10 stat, giving pretty good room for optimization.

Roll and arrange for me. Did so since the first time I picked up WFRP, and I've always asked GMs if I can roll for my stats, even if they are using arrays or point - buys. I just like to take my chances.

Quote from: Rincewind1;878981Roll and arrange for me. Did so since the first time I picked up WFRP, and I've always asked GMs if I can roll for my stats, even if they are using arrays or point - buys. I just like to take my chances.

Yeah, me too.  If they don't have a way to have me roll for stats or don't want me to, then I'll just randomly pick out of the pregen pile, or have the GM give me one.

Rolls. Always rolls.

Quote from: RPGPundit;879924Rolls. Always rolls.

Doesn't that cause balance issues in 5e?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879957Doesn't that cause balance issues in 5e?

No? Why would it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879957Doesn't that cause balance issues in 5e?

About as much balance issued that we saw in either 3.PF or 4e. In 5e it raises the baseline abilities of most characters who roll, with the exception of those that roll terribly. The ones that rolled in our D&D games (regardless of edition) almost always had better arrays to dole out compared to those who went with the point-buy/elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

The ones who choose the latter were often the ones who had a history of just rolling terrible for starting characters. For me it was two guys who just were horrible and always had a max stat of 13 and most were 8 to 11's. When you compared them to the guys who rolled 17, 17, 16, 14, 14, 10 it created a significant disparity among the players AND caused more work for me as the DM.

As I've noted before. In the current group I am playing in I have the lowest overall stats of the group. But bemusingly I have the most HP of the group. More than Jans Half-orc Fighter. In fact she has the lowest HP of the group.

Even if you roll poorly you can probably boost your prime stats up eventually to compensate.

And assuming really abysmal rolls. You can just ask to re-roll, use array or point instead. Or ask someone else to roll for you.

Or just not give a fuck about wether you have a +1 or not and the other guy does. (Really wide discrepencies though I can well understand being a little disconcerting.)

Quote from: Batman;879983About as much balance issued that we saw in either 3.PF or 4e. In 5e it raises the baseline abilities of most characters who roll, with the exception of those that roll terribly. The ones that rolled in our D&D games (regardless of edition) almost always had better arrays to dole out compared to those who went with the point-buy/elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

The ones who choose the latter were often the ones who had a history of just rolling terrible for starting characters. For me it was two guys who just were horrible and always had a max stat of 13 and most were 8 to 11's. When you compared them to the guys who rolled 17, 17, 16, 14, 14, 10 it created a significant disparity among the players AND caused more work for me as the DM.

That's the kind of balance issue I meant.

That and 5e's base bonuses are fairly static so starting off with +4 is pretty huge.

Quote from: Batman;879983...When you compared them to the guys who rolled 17, 17, 16, 14, 14, 10 ...

How about the guys who roll the opposite: 4, 4, 5, 7, 7, 11? :p

Quote from: Skarg;880051How about the guys who roll the opposite: 4, 4, 5, 7, 7, 11? :p

If your stats are that bad, you probably trip over a rock leaving your house and die.  Roll a new character. :)

My preference is to let it roll!

Quote from: Batman;879983... When you compared them to the guys who rolled 17, 17, 16, 14, 14, 10 ...

Quote from: Skarg;880051How about the guys who roll the opposite: 4, 4, 5, 7, 7, 11? :p

But with roll four dice and keep the best three, those aren't really opposite. The probability of rolling >= 17 is roughly the probability of rolling <= 7. The probability of rolling >= 16 is a little higher than the probability of rolling <= 8. The probability of rolling >= 14 is somewhat higher than the probability of rolling <= 10. The probability of rolling >= 10 is greater than the probability of rolling <= 14. So the opposite (by the probabilities) would be better than 7, 7, 8, 10, 10, 14, which is not that bad.

I think rolling is more fun, but used array on the last set of characters, just to be fair to everybody.  I think it's nice they have options.

Quote from: rawma;880076But with roll four dice and keep the best three, those aren't really opposite. The probability of rolling >= 17 is roughly the probability of rolling <= 7. The probability of rolling >= 16 is a little higher than the probability of rolling <= 8. The probability of rolling >= 14 is somewhat higher than the probability of rolling <= 10. The probability of rolling >= 10 is greater than the probability of rolling <= 14. So the opposite (by the probabilities) would be better than 7, 7, 8, 10, 10, 14, which is not that bad.

Oh, sure. I always think of D&D as 3d6.

(We used to joke about people rolling low and wanting to start over, but being required to roll to hit themselves and failing. ;) )

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;880002That's the kind of balance issue I meant.

That and 5e's base bonuses are fairly static so starting off with +4 is pretty huge.

Not really. A + 4 is just a +4. It might be important in one situation and not in another. And most players could care less if someone else hits more often or saves vs poison more often, etc more often.

5e stats can be improved over time and cap out at 20. So someone with say 18 will hit the cap in a single stat up. Which is exactly what Kefra did when she hit level 4 and bumped her WIS to 20. When she hits level 12 her DEX will hit 20 as well. Whereas my character who has been picking up feats is still where he was at the start stat-wise.

And note that your proficiency bonus does increase gradually. So your to-hit is going to improve no matter.

Quote from: cranebump;880079I think rolling is more fun, but used array on the last set of characters, just to be fair to everybody.  I think it's nice they have options.

Very much so. The DMG also takes into account using the two special stats by adding more to the array or point pool.

Funfact: Point buy is set up to short change min-maxers.

Quote from: Skarg;880051How about the guys who roll the opposite: 4, 4, 5, 7, 7, 11? :p

Four odd numbers and lots of low scores? Play a non-variant human cleric.

That's two -3 mods (5,5), one -2 mod (6), two -1 mods (8,8), and one +1 mod.

Put your two -3s in the second tier of saves, STR, INT, CHA.

Choose Sacred Flame cantrip. (Tempted to say Guidance cantrip, too.)

There's decent arguments to place the 12 and two 8s however you like among the first tier saves, DEX, CON, WIS.

You'll actually do fine in 5e, especially if you shop and chargen wisely. It's crazy hard to make an "irredeemably bad character." Certain chargen choices can get annoyingly frequent, but on the whole it's way better than WotC's other offerings.

Quote from: Opaopajr;880101Four odd numbers and lots of low scores? Play a non-variant human cleric.

That's two -3 mods (5,5), one -2 mod (6), two -1 mods (8,8), and one +1 mod.

Put your two -3s in the second tier of saves, STR, INT, CHA.

Choose Sacred Flame cantrip. (Tempted to say Guidance cantrip, too.)

There's decent arguments to place the 12 and two 8s however you like among the first tier saves, DEX, CON, WIS.

(http://i.giphy.com/LYDNZAzOqrez6.gif)

It's a hobby.

I can easily see a sullen cleric of Mask, god of thieves. Criminal background, chain shirt for stealth, 12 in DEX. AC 16 with shield, Stealth at +3, Guidance. Solid Rogue support.

Quote from: jcfiala;880057If your stats are that bad, you probably trip over a rock leaving your house and die.  Roll a new character. :)

That's not the problem as most groups accept this. But try telling an individual player that his/her stats are too good - when the rest of the party rolled average - and that is where the issues start for me.

Quote from: jcfiala;880057If your stats are that bad, you probably trip over a rock leaving your house and die.  Roll a new character. :)

I once outlived a character with a pair of 18s and a pair of 16s once with a character with about as bad rolls as that. And 1 HP on top of that. The dice really were against me that day.

Quote from: Opaopajr;880101Four odd numbers and lots of low scores? Play a non-variant human cleric.

Or a fighter or rogue. With their extra stat ups a character with that low stats could eventually bump up a few to average or better. Or boost that 11 to a 20 and use the excess on something else.

Quote from: Batman;879983About as much balance issued that we saw in either 3.PF or 4e. In 5e it raises the baseline abilities of most characters who roll, with the exception of those that roll terribly. The ones that rolled in our D&D games (regardless of edition) almost always had better arrays to dole out compared to those who went with the point-buy/elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

The ones who choose the latter were often the ones who had a history of just rolling terrible for starting characters. For me it was two guys who just were horrible and always had a max stat of 13 and most were 8 to 11's. When you compared them to the guys who rolled 17, 17, 16, 14, 14, 10 it created a significant disparity among the players AND caused more work for me as the DM.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;880002That's the kind of balance issue I meant.

That and 5e's base bonuses are fairly static so starting off with +4 is pretty huge.

Yeah, it is.  It manages to more or less outshine everything, and if the DM tries to balance it, everyone else who doesn't have that bonus feels kinda useless.  Or gets mulched.

The game, if I remember correctly, is balanced for a +2 bonus in your major stats.  Which makes Attribute hungry class, like the Monk, easier to manage.

Quote from: Omega;880085Not really. A + 4 is just a +4. It might be important in one situation and not in another. And most players could care less if someone else hits more often or saves vs poison more often, etc more often.

REALLY?  Man, I wish I had your table.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;880122That's not the problem as most groups accept this. But try telling an individual player that his/her stats are too good - when the rest of the party rolled average - and that is where the issues start for me.

Yeah, when one person is clearly better than the rest, try convincing them to tone it down.  Good luck with that.

One of the advantages of a fairy high risk of death even for strong characters (as opposed to "it's really hard to actually die") is that at least some of the characters get shuffled, and luck matters a lot during play, not just during roll-up (also as opposed to the players who want to split all EP and loot equally at all times, and to have replacement characters start at the same level as the survivors).

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone actually run group using 3d6 (in order, arrange, whatever)? Feel like you have to be something of a superdude/dudette with the stats for 5E.

I haven't tried it, but 18d6 averages 63 points, and the standard array totals 72 points and has a net +5 in bonuses compared to the character with all 10s or 11s. Troll dice roller and probability calculator says 12% of rolls on 18d6 would be 72 or above. It would be tougher but it doesn't seem unplayable. (Rolling for HP at first level instead of getting the maximum would probably be much tougher.)

No, I think it was just me meddling by throwing in the comment about the opposite stats on 3d6, not knowing what 5e says to do. Does it not mention 3d6 as an option?

I don't see any mention of another random method (besides roll 4d6, keep three) in the PHB or DMG. The other methods are point buy and standard array (which is one particular array available by point buy, included for faster non-random generation).

Quote from: cranebump;880281Maybe I missed it, but has anyone actually run group using 3d6 (in order, arrange, whatever)?

Feel like you have to be something of a superdude/dudette with the stats for 5E.

1: Yes. 3d6 in order for in BX with limited point shuffling. (About the same rules as OD&D) R4h3 and assign for AD&D.

2: The opposite. You can get along perfectly fine with average or even slightly sub-par stats. Like in about every single edition of D&D, the bonuses are nice. But are not a must have. 3 and 4e might be different there. Everything I saw of 3e seems to indicate heavy emphasis on pumping bonuses as high as possible.) The thing with 5e is that you can over time bump up your stats.

In our 5e sessions I have the lowest overall stats of the group. Though Jan has the lowest stats of the group and had she been doing 3d6 she would have been the first ever player I have ever seen to get not one but TWO 3s for stats! and that was was with r4h3.

Quote from: rawma;880335I don't see any mention of another random method (besides roll 4d6, keep three) in the PHB or DMG. The other methods are point buy and standard array (which is one particular array available by point buy, included for faster non-random generation).

Noted that too. Was a little odd to not see 3d6 in order not mentioned. But 4th ed didnt have it either. 4th Eds primary method was an array. 16 14 13 12 11 10. R4h3 was an option. 3rd ed had the most options.

Quote from: Skarg;880333No, I think it was just me meddling by throwing in the comment about the opposite stats on 3d6, not knowing what 5e says to do. Does it not mention 3d6 as an option?

I thought it did.  I stand corrected.  I recall seeing that, but...

For formalized play (the Adventure League stuff) is point buy and array only, though.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880362I thought it did.  I stand corrected.  I recall seeing that, but...

For formalized play (the Adventure League stuff) is point buy and array only, though.

I'm wondering how suicidal it would be to enforce 3d6. The assumption is characters have no negatives (or, at most 1 minor negative). Makes you wonder why we bother with negative numbers anyway (monster design, I guess).

I used 3d6 in-order once for 5E after some of the players convinced me to do it.

They weren't nearly so enthusiastic when they rolled low numbers.

Array. Fairer than random, faster than point-buy.

5E poses some extra limitations with array-setting since some characters (notably humans) benefit more from odd numbers. My players mostly like uber-stats so I was thinking of doing something like 18,17,16,15,14,13.

Which looks like the combination an idiot puts on their locker, but actually is specifically set up so that there are three odd numbers (so regular humans are better than 'feat humans', which are better than other races with a single +1), and with the lowest-number odd so that any +1s the character does get from race could be used to either bolster their worst stat (the 13) or grab a second 18.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;880674Array. Fairer than random, faster than point-buy.

5E poses some extra limitations with array-setting since some characters (notably humans) benefit more from odd numbers. My players mostly like uber-stats so I was thinking of doing something like 18,17,16,15,14,13.

Which looks like the combination an idiot puts on their locker, but actually is specifically set up so that there are three odd numbers (so regular humans are better than 'feat humans', which are better than other races with a single +1), and with the lowest-number odd so that any +1s the character does get from race could be used to either bolster their worst stat (the 13) or grab a second 18.

Mods with above array:
4,3,3,2,2,1

Mods with above array, non-variant human:
4,4,3,3,2,2

Mods with above array, variant (feat) human:
4,4,3,3,2,1, plus a feat and +1 skill.

Mods with above array, average +2/+1 non-human:
go for 20 in stat) 5,4,3,2,2,1
improve 17&14) 4,4,3,3,2,1
plus whatever non-human bennies.

Overall, non-variant humans' only benefit is merely +1 on their lowest stat...

I would go back to the drawing board or open use to point buy, personally.

Its a +1 to the lowest stat if you're assuming that if you had two +1s (for non-variant), you'd necessarily be raising the two higher odd values? IDK that that's necessarily true.
I think adding a fourth odd number might be giving regular humans too much.
Otherwise, I suppose I could go with something like [18,17,15,15,14,12] - an extra odd-number in the middle.

Once you cover your prime stat, con for hp, and at least two of your 1st tier saves you are usually good. This generous stat line leaves no negatives or 0 mods, only positive mods. So moreso than before there's little to worry about in terms of covering weaknesses.

Therefore the difference between regular non-variant humans with +1s to all stats, and others with focused stats plus extra bennies, is no longer about the non-variant human advantage of being well-rounded, i.e. avoiding weaknesses.

Thus all that's left is looking for extra bennies outside stats.

So unless you make the stat advantage strikingly larger it doesn't help much since everyone else also gets an advantage in everything, too.

Once you see the other racial bennies, (and extra skills, and feats,) in action it really is no comparison at all to this minor bump on the lowest stat. Choosing a race to fit the class is not that hard already. Maintaining the well-rounded advantage necessarily entails avoiding casual stat inflation.

You seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel here. From what my inner munchkin senses tell me, "you're doing it wrong." Take a cue from the gnashing of teeth over the 5e point buy issue to get a sense of why that solution works; it's pissing off all the right people, who badwrongfun chargen to kill light-hearted table interaction.

One method I've been thinking about using for games in which stats matter a lot is get a deck of cards and pick out 18 numerical cards from ace to six (depending on what stats you want the players to have you could have three of each or four sixes and two aces or whatever) and randomly assign three to each stat and add 'em up. Everyone has the same ability score total but they're assigned on average.

Quote from: Opaopajr;880712Once you cover your prime stat, con for hp, and at least two of your 1st tier saves you are usually good.

If that was true, it would indicate that the +1-to-everything-human isn't that good a deal to start with; its not specifically a problem with my particular array.
As it happens, though, I've been playing 5E with bloated stats from the get-go (via various other method) and it still seems to work. I mean, I've definitely found cases where I wished my Str ranger also had Dex (for better missile attacks) or my Dex fighter had more Str (e.g. after finding a +1 longsword) and so on.

QuoteYou seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel here. From what my inner munchkin senses tell me, "you're doing it wrong." Take a cue from the gnashing of teeth over the 5e point buy issue to get a sense of why that solution works; it's pissing off all the right people, who badwrongfun chargen to kill light-hearted table interaction.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: cranebump;880620I'm wondering how suicidal it would be to enforce 3d6. The assumption is characters have no negatives (or, at most 1 minor negative). Makes you wonder why we bother with negative numbers anyway (monster design, I guess).

With array or point buy you can end up with at least one, possibly 3 negatives. I think they went that route based on the r4h3 bell curve.

As noted, Me and Jan have characters both with low stats and are doing perfectly fine. 5e can certainly handle a 3d6 stat gen. Just be aware that like in all editions, too many really low stats can make things harsh indeed. And someone will love that challenge and others hate it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;880649I used 3d6 in-order once for 5E after some of the players convinced me to do it.

They weren't nearly so enthusiastic when they rolled low numbers.

How low and how many low per character? One or two 3s in 5e you can survive with. And as noted. If you survive long enough you can buy that off over time. Or at least dull the pain. aheh.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;880736If that was true, it would indicate that the +1-to-everything-human isn't that good a deal to start with; its not specifically a problem with my particular array.
As it happens, though, I've been playing 5E with bloated stats from the get-go (via various other method) and it still seems to work. I mean, I've definitely found cases where I wished my Str ranger also had Dex (for better missile attacks) or my Dex fighter had more Str (e.g. after finding a +1 longsword) and so on.

To many munchkins it wasn't a good deal. Many still complain about it as they see the feat+skill just a better deal. I think it's a solid deal for two major things: 1) takes better advantage of 3 or greater odd stats, 2) better well-roundedness as it avoids penalty mods and lack of mods.

The issue isn't just getting it to work. Just about anything can work for 5e with enough system mastery, case in point my chargen of the low statline in this topic. The point is why bother with normal humans when you take away their obvious chargen advantages leaving the rest just better.

The issue is about a bump to essentially the lowest stat and whether that justifies normal humans having setting dominance. Which unless your STR ranger or DEX fighter had their lowest stat in their opposite is not really much of a comparison. (Given your generous stat preference, I'm not seeing a 12+ in STR or DEX as much of a penalty or lack, let alone taking so low a DEX when there's extra +2s and +3s around.) The comparison would be more apt taking their lowest stat, like INT or CHA, from a +1 to a +2, while everything major is singing with +3. The bump is there for skills (though marginal for saves) yet is easily replaced by getting Proficiency Bonus — and there's race, background, and feats (even spells) to do all that.

From my setting perspective it does not work. Playable, but then anything's playable. However to me it is not justifiable.

Quote from: Opaopajr;880890To many munchkins it wasn't a good deal. Many still complain about it as they see the feat+skill just a better deal. I think it's a solid deal for two major things: 1) takes better advantage of 3 or greater odd stats, 2) better well-roundedness as it avoids penalty mods and lack of mods.

The issue isn't just getting it to work. Just about anything can work for 5e with enough system mastery, case in point my chargen of the low statline in this topic. The point is why bother with normal humans when you take away their obvious chargen advantages leaving the rest just better.

The issue is about a bump to essentially the lowest stat and whether that justifies normal humans having setting dominance. Which unless your STR ranger or DEX fighter had their lowest stat in their opposite is not really much of a comparison. (Given your generous stat preference, I'm not seeing a 12+ in STR or DEX as much of a penalty or lack, let alone taking so low a DEX when there's extra +2s and +3s around.) The comparison would be more apt taking their lowest stat, like INT or CHA, from a +1 to a +2, while everything major is singing with +3. The bump is there for skills (though marginal for saves) yet is easily replaced by getting Proficiency Bonus — and there's race, background, and feats (even spells) to do all that.

From my setting perspective it does not work. Playable, but then anything's playable. However to me it is not justifiable.

The flip side I think you're missing is that if you already have high stat bonuses, extra proficiency bonuses and other miscellaneous plusses for race are likewise less significant. Something like darkvision perhaps has a fixed benefit, but free armour proficiency is less useful if you have a good Dex, bonus HPs is less useful given a high Con, a free skill is less useful where attribute is already high and so on and so forth.
Seriously, six +1s is six +1s, whatever the base array is. I mean, feel free to hate my depraved lifestyle, but I like what I like, and I don't agree the game is really in any danger of breaking.
I'm also not seeing any setting implications. For one thing, the same array doesn't necessarily apply to NPCs who aren't heroes. For another, human setting dominance is usually predicated on demographic factors like population size / number of offspring that have little if anything to do with a given races' game mechanics.

We hates it, hates it with the fire of a thousand suns! :mad:
:)

No, I see those stat bonus effect on things. But feats and other racial bennies are very strong. Your commentary is pointing out some of the weak ones (armor proficiency as a feat? mastery, yes. proficiency, that's what class and race is for). Resistances, free cantrips, visions, exrta hiding, extra crit dice, etc. And that's before we really get into Great Weapon Mastery, Sharpshooter, etc. And opening extra skills for PB becomes important for other things, namely Expertise, adventure-specific restrictions to only skilled attempts, etc.

As for setting, you seem to be playing with the mythical heroes trope, which OK... not my style at all. Still makes non-variant human heroes rather lackluster, in my view, especially since they die younger than all but half-orcs. That they breed like goblins and their heroes can't see in the dark, or get things like extra dice on their crits, seems shrugworthy in comparison to other races.

I'd just make variant humans the human hero standard and ignore trying to create a separate stat array. It's the only quick and meaningful solution I see left.
:idunno:

I make my players take shots of whiskey. For every 2-shots they take, they get one point.

They have to take them consecutively, with no more than 6-seconds between shots. If they puke - they lose 10 points.

Whatever points they have left, they can purchase their stats. This is the only fair way.

Since the actual ability scores seem to mean fuck-all in 5e (or 4e, 3e, Pathfinder, 13th Age etc...) but the ability modifiers do... I'm sorely tempted to ditch them completely and simply find a way to randomize or allocate a list of bonuses or penalties for each stat (+2, +1, 0, -1).

Would simplify things and be a bit less confusing to new players unfamiliar with D&D's legacy features.

As for ability score increases, the maximum is +3 (except for rare circumstances like magic items) and an increase from levelling up grants +1 to a stat. Not sure what I'd do about those Feats that grant a +1 to a single attribute score, though.

Quote from: Necrozius;881102Since the actual ability scores seem to mean fuck-all in 5e

One thing the stats do though is limit how fast you can progress with your level up stat points. And a stat could become a target number for a check if you wanted instead of the current.

They show up in odd places, for example STR, like distance jumped and encumberance calculation.

Otherwise yeah, it does seem like a legacy afterthought at this point.

Its a good legacy to keep because its a more granular gauge than the bonuses and can be mapped to a d20 roll on the fly for at least adventurers. 5e caters a little too much to the "I need my bonuses!" crowd who at times seem incapable of accepting not having a bonus in everything. Or must have maxumum bonus.

Either make the game about rolling under your ability scores (like some OSR games like WhiteHack do) or make it about bonuses. There's gotta be a way to streamline this.

I mean, they eventually got rid of THAC0 and made everything universally roll high. I'm wondering if they'll ever take it a step further...

Quote from: Necrozius;881299Either make the game about rolling under your ability scores (like some OSR games like WhiteHack do) or make it about bonuses. There's gotta be a way to streamline this.

I mean, they eventually got rid of THAC0 and made everything universally roll high. I'm wondering if they'll ever take it a step further...

Not as long as people like Gronan exist.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;881349Not as long as people like Gronan exist.

Gronan keeps forgetting to mention that OD&Ds stat gen method is not 3d6 in order.

It is 3d6 in order and then shuffle points on a 3 for 1 basis with simmilar restrictions as B and BX. (Which used a 2 for 1 shuffle.)

My point was, and I just realized it was a little snarkier than intended, was that those who seeing the results of their dice rolls will want to see what the bonus is attached to.

Personally, as I play Mutants and Masterminds 3e, it doesn't affect me.

The whole concept is wrongly framed: "point buy, stat array, or rolls" is meaningless because it should always be ROLLS.

The real question is "3d6-in-order, 3d6-&-allocate, 4d6-remove-lowest, or some form of heresy beyond that"?

Point buy you've explained, but why not stat array?

Dont know about Pundit. But for me array has the same inherint problem as point buy, only worse. Too easy to end up with cookie cutter characters. With array that is magnified as theres not even the variance of different point buy approaches.

The problem with pointbuy is minmaxing.

Stat array stops that at least.

Every method can have that.

5es point buy I actually like as the more you max the less overall you have in the end.

Point buy and array are taking a design/authorial perspective towards character creation. Rolling attributes is "this is what you are born with, see what you can do".

My preferred method is to just let the players pick whatever the hell they want.  They can roll, they can point buy to whatever total they want, they can use an array, they can draw cards, read entrails, and even just write down the exact scores they want (the usual choice).

Lots of people here say don't play with jerks.  So I trust my players not to be jerks.  Since doing this I have never had a player pick all max scores using this method or anything like it.  In fact, people tend to make surprisingly interesting characters, with strengths and weaknesses based on a reasonable concept.  At worst I have had a couple make me give them a point total and let them point buy to that total.

I am ok with point buy. But I warn the players that if it looks like they are min/maxing rather than creating a character then they may well end up rolling 3d6 in order instead. And I wont be as merciful as OD&D and let you shuffle points.

Though with 5es system Im more lenient.

Quote from: Brander;883182My preferred method is to just let the players pick whatever the hell they want.  They can roll, they can point buy to whatever total they want, they can use an array, they can draw cards, read entrails, and even just write down the exact scores they want (the usual choice).

On the way to the store to purchase some tripe right now. Cannot WAIT for chargen! :-)

Here are 6 cups. Here is a pitcher of water. You can pour however much you want into each cup. But any spilt is lost.

Quote from: cranebump;883255On the way to the store to purchase some tripe right now. Cannot WAIT for chargen! :-)

Sounds like you would fit in well with some of my group :-)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;882962Point buy you've explained, but why not stat array?

Controlled, predictable character creation tends to create controlled, predictable characters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;883511Controlled, predictable character creation tends to create controlled, predictable characters.

What do you do if someone rolls all high or all low? Just let them deal with it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;883511Controlled, predictable character creation tends to create controlled, predictable characters.

And 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.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;883511Controlled, predictable character creation tends to create controlled, predictable characters.

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.

My solution (back on page 2 of this thread) was random (to address concerns like RPGPundit's) but balanced (to address concerns like Christopher Brady's).

(You roll 3d6 for your first three stats as per usual, but write down the nine numbers you rolled in a grid, then write down 7 minus these numbers and then add up to generate the three remaining stats which all add up to 63. It's a bit mathsy but you retain the same chance of rolling a 3 or an 18).

I'm surprised not to see more solutions like this, for example a list of 100 stat arrays, roll d% to see what you get.

Personally if the stats are 3-18 then I like to generate the stats using my first method because that keeps you rolling 3d6 and so it feels like D&D. If only the bonuses matter, I ditch the 3-18 and use the second method.

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

In 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.

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 :D

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).

Quote from: cranebump;890337The 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).

That is actually one of my largest complaints about WotC D&D paradigms. High mod cascading dependence, paired with tight even progression and equal distribution among stats, causes a stronger "need" for results reliability. The threshold for perceived viability is narrowed, to the detriment of more freeform play.

Which is another reason I like 5e. It constrains PC stats to a max of 20 and if using array or point buy then you are only going to get at best one stat up to 17 or 18. Combined with the limit of +3 max to magic weapons and the more gradual to hit progression for everyone.

But aside from 3 and 4e the bonus escalation was not a real issue. Merely a player perceived need.

The bounded accuracy is definitely a plus in my book, as it shows a distinct end-game. By having a visible upper limit, the rest of magical items are liberated back into lateral creative development instead of bucket o' mod boosts. I still would rather have even less mod reliance in 5e, focusing on PB instead, but it is the only WotC D&D I would ever play again.

Quote from: Omega;890453Which is another reason I like 5e. It constrains PC stats to a max of 20 and if using array or point buy then you are only going to get at best one stat up to 17 or 18. Combined with the limit of +3 max to magic weapons and the more gradual to hit progression for everyone.

But aside from 3 and 4e the bonus escalation was not a real issue. Merely a player perceived need.

It does seem a complete necessity to have an 18 in your prime, though.

Wonder if you could run 5E using the old Mod progression?

Quote from: cranebump;890470It does seem a complete necessity to have an 18 in your prime, though.

Wonder if you could run 5E using the old Mod progression?

1: Uh? No it doesnt. You dont need high stats at all in 5e.

2: To what edition?
A and 2e use the same individual stat progression - which is a mess.
3 to 5e use the same unified progression and gives the baseline a little more chance to get a bonus or negative. Changing it is not going to "fix" anything as the progression is not too far off from previous.

An AD&D character for example with 3 DX is -4 AC. A 5e character with any stat at 3 is -4. Which on its own is actually meaningless as AD&D 3 CON is -2. On average 5e characters get more penalties to balance out the slightly more baseline bonuses.

And OD&D only gave you bonuses to three stats. Strength, Dexterity, and Charisma (though charisma was never explained. And that mod was only +1 for the first two.

D&Ds stat mods have shifted over the decades and much as I like AD&D. I much prefer BX or 3-5es unified progression. Interestingly the two arent too far off from each other either. If you added +1 to BXs progression youd get something vaugly like 3-5es.

So you could just subtract 1 from all the 5e stats and go if you want things harder, or subtract 2 if you want things harder yet.

Quote from: cranebump;890470It does seem a complete necessity to have an 18 in your prime, though.

Actually no, it doesn't.  Because the bonuses and target numbers in general are lower, the most you 'need' to be 'good' is a +2 bonus in your prime stat.

Where you needed 18 was actually 3-4e, because of the constantly escalating numbers.

Quote from: cranebump;890470Wonder if you could run 5E using the old Mod progression?

Which one?  Honest question, because I hear that the current system reintroduced in 3e was actually based an older edition, which is before AD&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;890522Actually no, it doesn't.  Because the bonuses and target numbers in general are lower, the most you 'need' to be 'good' is a +2 bonus in your prime stat.

Granted.  Perhaps "good" was a poor term to use. However, it seems that, given the standard array, the expectation would be a +3 (16), practically from the get-go, depending on race bonus, I guess. I also think it's practically a given that you'll be at 18 in short order in the prime stat. Of course, I'm not using feats, so the stat bump really IS a given, if I'm running as basic as possible.

QuoteWhich one?  Honest question, because I hear that the current system reintroduced in 3e was actually based an older edition, which is before AD&D.

I was thinking on the order of 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, 18=+3. I currently run 5th without Feats. I apply proficiency to all stats, and allow the skills selected by players through their race/class to be "specializations" that grant them advantage when they use them.

You may have already answered my question, however. So, if +2 is good, then the standards ability bumps would nudge most everyone into +2 range, albeit later on.

Of course, now I'm wondering what happens is +3 is the max. And thinking maybe using proficiency dice option might be an option. The results would be swingier, but it might be fun. If I did that, then the skill specs would allow a second proficiency dice, rather than advantage.

Quote from: Omega;8905131: Uh? No it doesnt. You dont need high stats at all in 5e.

2: To what edition?
A and 2e use the same individual stat progression - which is a mess.
3 to 5e use the same unified progression and gives the baseline a little more chance to get a bonus or negative. Changing it is not going to "fix" anything as the progression is not too far off from previous.

An AD&D character for example with 3 DX is -4 AC. A 5e character with any stat at 3 is -4. Which on its own is actually meaningless as AD&D 3 CON is -2. On average 5e characters get more penalties to balance out the slightly more baseline bonuses.

And OD&D only gave you bonuses to three stats. Strength, Dexterity, and Charisma (though charisma was never explained. And that mod was only +1 for the first two.

D&Ds stat mods have shifted over the decades and much as I like AD&D. I much prefer BX or 3-5es unified progression. Interestingly the two arent too far off from each other either. If you added +1 to BXs progression youd get something vaugly like 3-5es.

So you could just subtract 1 from all the 5e stats and go if you want things harder, or subtract 2 if you want things harder yet.

I'd rather have B/X as well, I think. For the record, I regard anything 16 or above as "high." A +3 mod seems pretty significant, and you can get one right out of the gate in 5E. Of course, my perception comes from playing a lot of the older editions, when stat scaling wasn't a given, and a +3 was the pinnacle.  Now, I feel like it is an expectation, but, if you really don't have to have it, then I probably could adopt something like you're suggesting without unbalancing the game too much.  Maybe?

At this point, I doubt the group would let me. They're used to the bonuses as they are.

I prefer "the mess," by far. Makes point buy and array less consistently profitable, favoring random and speeding up chargen sessions. Also greater spread of average leaves most mods as sprinkles instead of main courses.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;890522Which one?  Honest question, because I hear that the current system reintroduced in 3e was actually based an older edition, which is before AD&D.

Not OD&D. It uses an even harsher limit. +/-1 only for a stat that qualified. (except for Charisma which could go up to +4/-2)  And only Constitution, Dexterity and Charisma had mods of any sort.

BX seems the closest match. Overall unified stat mods and more mods (good and bad) for average stats.

One interesting thing about this is that 3-5, while giving you better chances at bonuses, also gives you better chances at negatives.

The safe zone in 3-5e is 10-11.
The safe zone in BX is 9-12
The general safe zone in A-2e is 8-13
The safe zone in O for CON is 7-14

Quote from: Omega;890610One interesting thing about this is that 3-5, while giving you better chances at bonuses, also gives you better chances at negatives.

I suspect that increasing inflation of when baseline negatives start is the culprit to perceived need for greater stats. Perhaps it is moreso than the faster access to greater positive modifiers. But 3e/4e "treadmill" probably amplified pressure from both factors...

Quote from: Opaopajr;890625I suspect that increasing inflation of when baseline negatives start is the culprit to perceived need for greater stats. Perhaps it is moreso than the faster access to greater positive modifiers. But 3e/4e "treadmill" probably amplified pressure from both factors...

Likely. I can speak to that "perceived need" myself, simply based on my earlier posts (the "necessity" of having an 18, for which I was corrected twice). So, if there is no real need for high stats, then a rollback to the wider safe zone (which I personally like a great deal) wouldn't be an issue.

(Time to go back into my houserules and do more tweaking).:-)

Quote from: Opaopajr;890573I prefer "the mess," by far. Makes point buy and array less consistently profitable, favoring random and speeding up chargen sessions. Also greater spread of average leaves most mods as sprinkles instead of main courses.

But in 5e's case, the game is built around the assumption of average stats, so what happens when you get 18s and 6s. Just roll with it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890759But in 5e's case, the game is built around the assumption of average stats, so what happens when you get 18s and 6s. Just roll with it?

When you say average, do you mean 10-11?

Quote from: cranebump;890630Likely. I can speak to that "perceived need" myself, simply based on my earlier posts (the "necessity" of having an 18, for which I was corrected twice). So, if there is no real need for high stats, then a rollback to the wider safe zone (which I personally like a great deal) wouldn't be an issue.

(Time to go back into my houserules and do more tweaking).:-)

Use AD&D's DEX then. It is a good median between the narrow and the broad. Or BXs as the bonuses are less.

Some general examples.

5es progression is -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +4
BXs progression is -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3
AD&D and 2e DEX -4 -3 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 for example
OD&D CON is  -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1
While OD&D DEX is -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
And OD&D CHA is -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +4
And nothing for STR or DEX.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890759But in 5e's case, the game is built around the assumption of average stats, so what happens when you get 18s and 6s. Just roll with it?

Yes. Why are you so hung up over this?

If you have players who are freaking out because someone has a bonus and they dont then you may want to look a little closer at that player and wether or not you want them as a player at all because that may be the start of the trouble and not the end.

Or just tell everyone to use the array and everyone plays the same race because otherwise you'll have inequality in stat bonuses all over again.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890759But in 5e's case, the game is built around the assumption of average stats, so what happens when you get 18s and 6s. Just roll with it?

Any multiple-roll-to-generate-stats system is by its very nature going to be built on the assumption of average stats due to the bell curve. AD&D DMG even explained that early on.

With 3d6 the average is 9-12.
With r4h3 that is 11-14
5es array (15 14 13 12 10 8) seems to be based on the r4h3. Lowest stat is 8. Highest is 15 before racial.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890759But in 5e's case, the game is built around the assumption of average stats, so what happens when you get 18s and 6s. Just roll with it?

Yes, you just roll with it.

And since the campaign at that point is not AL legal (AL only supports stat array & point buy,) that means you're also not running your campaign to tight parameters. Thus previously assumed CR or XP expectations don't matter because you are not taking the adventure/campaign product on a fixed schedule. Further, given 5e's generous chargen workarounds for character weaknesses (either race bonuses, selective save weakness, feats, Ability Score Increases, etc.) you have a lot of room to "survive" that low stat.

For some tables it matters, because they 'just gotta beat' official products before the next release, keep things 'tourney legal', or anything less than 'epic heroes' is a waste of their playtime. I, and people like me, are not those tables. Badwrongfun, kthxbai, and all that jazz...

Quote from: Omega;890786Yes. Why are you so hung up over this?

If you have players who are freaking out because someone has a bonus and they dont then you may want to look a little closer at that player and wether or not you want them as a player at all because that may be the start of the trouble and not the end.

Or just tell everyone to use the array and everyone plays the same race because otherwise you'll have inequality in stat bonuses all over again.

Because on the one hand everybody talks about like 5e's math is so tightly made to work only around the average scores and that it breaks if you use higher or lower numbers, but then everybody also turns around and says to just use those numbers anyway.

It just seems counterintuitive to say X doesn't work and then recommend doing it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;890891Yes, you just roll with it.

And since the campaign at that point is not AL legal (AL only supports stat array & point buy,) that means you're also not running your campaign to tight parameters. Thus previously assumed CR or XP expectations don't matter because you are not taking the adventure/campaign product on a fixed schedule. Further, given 5e's generous chargen workarounds for character weaknesses (either race bonuses, selective save weakness, feats, Ability Score Increases, etc.) you have a lot of room to "survive" that low stat.

Hmm, that's the opposite of what I always hear though. Normally what people say about 5e is that because there are so few bonuses your initial stat is a huge deal.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890896Hmm, that's the opposite of what I always hear though. Normally what people say about 5e is that because there are so few bonuses your initial stat is a huge deal.

Your initial stat is a huge deal. Just like it was in all previous editions, too.

But there's a difference between a perceived need ("My fighter just has to have 18/% STR or I'll just scream!"), and a playable mean ("This 5e mod bonus doesn't tie into absolutely everything, so I could survive with a mediocre WIS cleric,").

Perceived need can really shape community theory wank, especially if exacerbated by table demands -- which at times is even "dictated" by other external expectations.

In actual play though things are often very different. There is a reason why the anecdote about "many 18s" PCs dying early in their careers is prosaic. If you only listen to char-gen theorists you presume a character generation game where reaching lvl 20 (or whatever max) is a given. In practice, there are way more factors in an RPG than mere character builds -- in fact, the whole of the game rests between such spreadsheet builds.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;890895Because on the one hand everybody talks about like 5e's math is so tightly made to work only around the average scores and that it breaks if you use higher or lower numbers, but then everybody also turns around and says to just use those numbers anyway.

It just seems counterintuitive to say X doesn't work and then recommend doing it.

Uh? Who is saying this? I am not seeing anyone saying that 5e breaks at the higher scores. Just that you do not neeeeeeed higher scores in anything other than 3-4e.

It is an edge that you can do perfectly fine without. And when rolling stats you MUST accept this as by the very nature of the bell curve the high and low ends of the scores are rare to be ever seen.

Even with r4h3 which nudges the chances a little better towards good rolls, the chance of getting an 18 is only 1.62%., a 17 is 4.17% and a 16 is 7.25%. Your chances of getting a 3 is a mere .08%, a 4 is .31% and a 5 is .77%.
Using  r3. the chance of getting an 18 is .46%, a 17 is 1.39%, and a 16 is 2.78%. Same chances for 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

As mentioned in another thread with is playing 5e. Jannet is the first ever player in all these years I have ever seen potentially roll not one but two 3s for stats had we been using r3. Luckily we were using r4h3 so they werent that bad off. Stats before racial were STR:12, DEX:14, CON:14, INT:6, WIS:4, CHA:9. Final stats 14, 14, 15, 6, 4, 9 and has been doing just fine and in an adventure or two should be about caught up to Kefra and myself. in levels.

Quote from: Omega;890781Use AD&D's DEX then. It is a good median between the narrow and the broad. Or BXs as the bonuses are less.

Some general examples.

5es progression is -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +4
BXs progression is -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3
AD&D and 2e DEX -4 -3 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 for example
OD&D CON is  -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1
While OD&D DEX is -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
And OD&D CHA is -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +4
And nothing for STR or DEX.

Familiar with all of them. Planning on using the B/X progression in an M20 version of the system.

Glancing through 2e. That presented 6 different methods.

Method 1: 3d6 in order.
Method 2: 3d6 twice for each stat. Choose one of the two for each.
Method 3: 3d6 and assign.
Method 4: 3d6 twelve times, assign hightest six.
Method 5: 4d6 keep highest 3, assign.
Method 6: All stats start at 8. Roll seven dice and assign each roll as desired, even to the same stat. 18 max.

Skills & Powers added 3 more. (And a tenth tied into the Character Point system)

Method 7: 75 points to assign to stats. 3 to 18.
Method 8: Assign 24 dice between stats, minimum of three each and then roll and keep highest 3 of each.
Method 9: roll 2d6 and check table for how many points can assign to stats and the max a stat can be. 3 minimum.
Roll Points Max
  2    68   18
  3    70   18
  4    72   17
  5    72   18
  6    74   17
  7    74   18
  8    76   17
  9    76   16
 10    78   16
 11    78   15
 12    80   15

Observation. Method 7 seems a bit overpowered. You can generate with it a character with the following stats. 18, 18, 18, 15, 3, 3. Maybe lower the points to 63?

AD&D also had these two that werent in 2e.
Method 3: 3d6 six times for each stat in order, keep highest for each.
Method 4: 3d6 in order. Generate 12 characters. Choose one.

The B/X progression is the correct one.