I'm growing to loathe the way standard array produces standardised mid-level and high level stats.

Next time out I'll try 4d6 drop lowest, in order, play what you get, I'm sure it will give more interesting characters.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on June 20, 2021, 10:06:08 PM
It depends upon the system. If attributes are going to be a large % of a character's power - I definitely prefer either point-buy or stat arrays (potentially a few stat array options).

If the attributes don't matter as much and/or it's going to be a one-shot, then randomness is fine. I definitely enjoy rolling for a CoC one-shot.

But if the rolls are going to be a big chunk of the character over the course of a campaign - I don't want to leave it purely to chance. (I don't like to be either the crappy character or the OP character.)

That's why early D&D rolling for stats worked - because often it didn't matter that much - just on the edges. Especially starting in 3.x onward - your attributes are a big chunk of your character's power.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 20, 2021, 09:42:27 PM
One thing I noticed as the editions developed was an inflation in player character stats - and a corresponding hike in monster hit points. I prefer the idea that you don't need to be extraordinarily strong, fast, wise, etc. to be a hero. You just need to be willing to put your character's life on the line. Inflating stats doesn't help you do that. It just raises the bar for what it takes for your characters to be considered heroes.

Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items.  Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later).  So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus.  The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items.  Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later).  So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus.  The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...

That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.

The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.

My preferred system is point buy.

If I have to roll then it has to be old school 4d6 roll 1s again and assign to taste.

Quote from: Shasarak on June 21, 2021, 05:04:06 PM
My preferred system is point buy.

If I have to roll then it has to be old school 4d6 roll 1s again and assign to taste.

I use that type of roll, but in order down the line.  Roll multiple characters.  Assign a class to each.  Choose one, and use it.  The others are backup characters.

Quote from: mightybrain on June 20, 2021, 09:42:27 PM
One thing I noticed as the editions developed was an inflation in player character stats - and a corresponding hike in monster hit points. I prefer the idea that you don't need to be extraordinarily strong, fast, wise, etc. to be a hero. You just need to be willing to put your character's life on the line. Inflating stats doesn't help you do that. It just raises the bar for what it takes for your characters to be considered heroes.

Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.

In 2e there were some upper limits combined with certain drawbacks to trying to do it via spell. Much the same as it was in AD&D.

3e seems to be where things went nuts and you could pump stats like crazy and sometimes had to just about to reach certain thresholds.

4e no idea.

5e caps normally at 20 for PCs, with a few exceptions allowing to go over that.

Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
4e no idea.

5e caps normally at 20 for PCs, with a few exceptions allowing to go over that.

4E used exclusively level-based stat increases; you got +1 to any two stats at levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 28 and +1 to all stats at levels 11 and 21. A couple of epic destinies also gave you +2 to any two stats (effectively +1 to rolls related to that stat) in lieu of other features.

Magic items did not increase stats at all (ex. Gauntlets of Ogre Power increased your lifting capacity and allowed you to throw 20+ lb. objects as weapon attacks, but did not affect your Strength score).

Another important note about 5e's stats is that, unless you're using feats (they are optional and I know at least a few groups who don't use them) you're pretty much going to get your class' key stat and probably some others to 20 eventually since, without feats to spend them on instead every class gets at least +10 to their stats over the course of leveling up and some, like the fighter (+14) and rogue (+12), getting even more than that.

If you had a 16 to start in your class' primary stat, you'd be able to get it to 20 by level 8 on most classes and level 6 on a fighter.

As such, ironically, 5e almost goes back to the "stats don't matter that much" since everyone will eventually cap their main stat. The only difference is what level they cap it and how many other stats they're able to improve in addition to their main one.

Quote from: Omega on June 21, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
Its been all over the place with D&D. Early game had little limits on how far you could take stats. IF you could get the things needed. The usual scarcity if those boosters was the limiter.

I miss the ADnD stats and being able to unlock things like regeneration if you could get over an 18.

I certainly remember that getting an 18 stat in Basic was an event. Maybe 1 in 20 characters had one. So your party was not likely to have such a superstar. Taking the best 3 of 4d6 method reduced that to about 1 in 5 so almost every party would have at least one PC with an 18 stat. At first it seemed like a better deal, but it wasn't as special precisely because your chances were greater. In any game your exact stats don't matter as much as the distribution among the players / enemies.

Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items.  Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later).  So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus.  The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...

That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.

The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.

Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal."  Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7.  Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14.  You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...

Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items.  Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later).  So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus.  The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...

That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.

The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.

Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal."  Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7.  Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14.  You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...

Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...

Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.

4d6 + arrange to taste for the win!

To answer OP, one of my favorites is 4d6 in order, swap any two. Arrays and point buys tend to result in the same few stat distributions, so I like the randomness of rolling. And arranging the stats at will has the same problem, because even if the numbers are randomly generated, players will inevitably distribute the scores in the same order. Random rolls in order just creates so much more variety. You may end up with an unexpected weakness or strength, and it breaks up the stereotypes like all fighters are dumb, or Charisma is a dump stat. Though there will always be players who are unhappy with the results, and allowing them to swap any two stats lets them to shore up a weak point, or make their chosen ability the highest one. It gives them power over the stat they feel is most important, while leaving everything else the player judges as less important to the randomness of the dice. There's nothing magical about 4d6, it just tends to work well for games like AD&D. 3d6 is often better for BD&D or OD&D.

Quote from: Pat on June 21, 2021, 09:43:09 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 09:33:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 21, 2021, 04:31:36 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 21, 2021, 03:25:29 PM
Both of these hit on an important point. In early D&D, bonuses were mostly earned via class progression and/or magic items.  Stats didn't go up naturally via leveling (that was completely a feature of 3e and later).  So your stats really didn't have much effect beyond a small attribute bonus, level limits, and an experience bonus.  The method of stat generation has only really become an issue once stats became more important to character utility and performance...

That wasn't my experience with AD&D first edition. I always felt like the AD&D1 ability score rolls were extremely important - moreso than later editions. Later editions smoothed out the bonuses so there was more of an incremental change as you got better, and removed the level limits and experience bonus based on stats. Among groups I played, getting an 18 in your primary stat was a big deal -- much bigger than in later editions when 18 is just a minor incremental change from 16. Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range, and further, high stats let you be limited character types like a ranger or paladin that weren't available at all otherwise.

The main offset to this was just that there tended to be more randomness in adventures, so even a great stat character could fail a save-or-die effect, for example, or get level drained.

Please explain how, to a non-fighter, the difference between an 8 or an 18 is a "big deal."  Explain how it has " sharp changes in the 15-18 range."
Or how a 14 in con is so much better than a 7.  Or how a non-fighter experiences a "sharp change" in bonuses above 14.  You must have been using a very different edition of AD&D than the rest of us...

Edit: One of those charts is from 2e, but the bonuses are the same...

Where did you get most of that? He specifically said an 18 in a primary stat was a big deal, which means fighters, not "non-fighters". And he was talking about the bonuses in the 15-18 range, and didn't say a thing about how a 14 was much better than a 7.

"Most of the attributes charts had sharp changes in the 15-18 range".  Don't see primary stat anywhere in that sentence.

But even assuming he meant for the previous mention to apply here... nope... they didn't.  Con, even for fighters, gives only hp (the other effects are in single digit percent).  And 18, even if you were a fighter and used percentile strength (which was optional), you went from +1 to +2 to hit unless you roll a 00.  Wow, that +1 is game-changing...

A fighter going up a level gets +1 to hit; +2 every second level on the charts so as not to make them too big, but most of us made it +1 per level. Acquiring a relatively minor magical weapon would also give +1 to hit.

And of course, it's +1 on a d20, and so a 5% change in the odds. If you saw two players side-by-side and they simply rolled their dice and didn't announce their modifiers, it would take you a lot of dice rolls before you figure out that one of them had +1 compared to the other, or even +3.

You would much more quickly figure out which player was smarter and used better tactics, though.

In AD&D1e, stats were in fact not that important. The players' wits and sheer luck were much, much more important.