Alternate Stats roll ~ feedback [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alternate Stats roll ~ feedback [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Octiron
07-30-03, 05:38 PM Here's something I wanted feedback on:

Each attribute is basically 6+2d6, but with a twist. Start with 6 in each attribute, then roll 6d6 once. Record the 6 scores that come up. Then, take each six sided die and flip it over to it's opposite side (the side that was against the table), then record that number. Record the six flipside scores. This gives you 12 scores, adding up to 42. You can put two of these into each attribute however you like.

For example your 6d6 roll might be:
6, 2, 3, 5, 4, 2

The flipside of these scores would be:
1, 5, 4, 2, 3, 5

Now, in addition to the automatic 6 in each attribute, you can put in 2 of each of your 12 scores (6, 2, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5). If I wanted to make a rogue, I would go with:

STR: 12 (2+4)
DEX: 17 (6+5)
CON: 12 (4+2)
INT: 16 (5+5)
WIS: 10 (3+1)
CHA: 11 (3+2)

The average attribute score under this system is 13, with attributes ranging from 8-18. Any level 1 character using this method will start with 78 attribute points. Compare this to the "Elite array" (DMG pg 169: attributes of 15,14,13,12,10, and 8), which is 72 attribute points.

I think the advantages of this system are that it retains both the fairness of a point system and some of the unpredictability of a random one.

I plan to use this and the living greyhawk HP method (max start, half +1 each level).
Sid_Patterson
07-30-03, 06:49 PM Whatever works.

Do you find that you have incredible amounts of spare time on your hands? Sounds like it.

There are bunches of different combos one can try to generate Ability scores, but honestly the variation is minimal. Sounds like you're making a big process out of a set of numbers who's long term affect on game play is really minor.
Octiron
08-01-03, 05:24 PM Ok. One vote for "much ado about nothing." However the mass of threads on the topic of methods for rolling character stats seems to contradict that.

So, other than speculation about my personal life, does anyone have feedback on this method?

The intent was to make characters that are consistently better than average without making super powerful characters that break the game. Most named NPCs in the books seem to have stats that run around 78 in range.

If you were a player, would you be satisfied?

Is it too complex? You actually roll less than any of the other methods.

Is this the sort of thing you'd consider implementing as a DM?
Flak
08-01-03, 05:31 PM If one of my players wanted to use it, I would allow it. It doesn't create overly powerful characters, and it isn't too complicated. I, personally, don't care how the stats are generated, as long as it isn't a way to create ubercharacters. In fact, if a player told me he wanted to just make up stats, and kept them reasonable, I would allow the character. But I do agree with Sid--the stats should not be over-emphasized in a campaign. It is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game.
Octiron
08-01-03, 05:49 PM Do you feel this method "over-emphasizes" stats, any more than point-buy?

Does using a balanced stat system make it harder to roleplay somehow? Does my mentioning this system make me a "roll-player" rather than a "role-player?"
DragonX10^9
08-01-03, 07:06 PM Now, now. No need to get into that...that argument exists already on another thread. ;)

Anyhow, I like this method and I think I'll use it. I would be satisfied with that character's abilities (the rogue, above), and probably any other PC generated with this method. It's pretty close to the kind of stats we use, anyway, and fairly easy to do.
Herr Doktor
08-01-03, 09:01 PM I'll give it some playtesting time when next my group rolls up characters, then I'll let ya know what I think.

The concept behind it seems sound enough... nothing too low, and nothing likely to be overwhelmingly high either.
Nadokla
08-01-03, 09:45 PM I wouldn't see a problem with it. Though I don't see how it varies much from a point buy. If you roll the dice and then read the flip side, the totals of those two numbers will always total 7, so it is going to give you the 42 points in addition to your 6 for each. So, why not just give them a 6 for each and then 42 points to distribute?

Though, this system does prevent the roleplaying potential of having a score below 10 that would give you a negative modifier.

Again, not a problem with the system. Just that I prefer the randomness of rolling all the dice.
Sid_Patterson
08-01-03, 09:57 PM Originally posted by Octiron
So, other than speculation about my personal life, does anyone have feedback on this method?
Woh, did I strike a cord there man?

It just seems a small thing to worry about. Of the 4 or 5 ways that are mentioned in the PHB (I think) the desired level of Atribute scores are pretty much covered. You might get a one or two point difference if you're REALLY determined to track progress, but that's about the difference yet another Ability generating system will accomplish.

Guess my jab about too much spare time was too harsh. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Didn't mean to get anyone in a huff.

:rolleyes:
Octiron
08-02-03, 12:11 AM Cool. Thanks for the input guys.

Nadokla;

Yes, you are right in that the totals of the two numbers always equal 7, and that makes it similar to just using 42 points.
However, the difference is that it is still somewhat random. What I mean is the the numbers you roll will change the combinations you can make from them.
I liked point systems, but I felt D&D was missing something if you don't get to roll. Maybe it's more of an aesthetic difference.

btw, there is still a chance of getting an 8 (6+1+1), which is a negative modifier. If you want lower, you can go back to 1st edition and use the rule where you can give up two points in an attribute to add 1 to another.
Nadokla
08-02-03, 01:02 AM True, I missed the 6+1+1 in my figuring. (Makes me think of the movie Clue...1+1+2+1...) Also, different races have plusses and minuses, so I guess you could still possibly end up with rather low numbers.

Like I said, if it works for you and your group, I'm all for it. My group still rolls them up. If all the scores really stink, we just reroll the entire group (not just the bad score). After all, we play D&D to have fun. If you have three negative modifiers and nothing higher than a 14, you could be in for a tough life and should maybe stick to farming or running the bakery instead of adventuring. Though I am sure some would relish that roleplaying challenge.
Octiron
08-02-03, 01:47 AM Yeah, this would of course be a good method for some groups and a bad one for others. Personal opinion. I happen to really like it and mostly wanted to see if anyone could spot some glaring problems with it that I might not have seen.

I'm actually pleased to see people here (Nadokla, Flak, etc.) that don't seem to have had big problems with game balance under totally random rolls. Your gaming groups must be different than mine. Part of the inspiration for this method came from playing with very uneven characters, which seems to relegate some players to being hopelessly second string and a bit bored or resentful.

It's an idea that just sort of popped into my head during a game when I was just toying with my d6's. It seemed like a good one so I thought I'd throw it into the lion's den and see how it fared.

Never hurts to have another choice afterall.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Octiron 07-30-03, 05:38 PM	Here's something I wanted feedback on: Each attribute is basically 6+2d6, but with a twist. Start with 6 in each attribute, then roll 6d6 once. Record the 6 scores that come up. Then, take each six sided die and flip it over to it's opposite side (the side that was against the table), then record that number. Record the six flipside scores. This gives you 12 scores, adding up to 42. You can put two of these into each attribute however you like. For example your 6d6 roll might be: 6, 2, 3, 5, 4, 2 The flipside of these scores would be: 1, 5, 4, 2, 3, 5 Now, in addition to the automatic 6 in each attribute, you can put in 2 of each of your 12 scores (6, 2, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5). If I wanted to make a rogue, I would go with: STR: 12 (2+4) DEX: 17 (6+5) CON: 12 (4+2) INT: 16 (5+5) WIS: 10 (3+1) CHA: 11 (3+2) The average attribute score under this system is 13, with attributes ranging from 8-18. Any level 1 character using this method will start with 78 attribute points. Compare this to the "Elite array" (DMG pg 169: attributes of 15,14,13,12,10, and 8), which is 72 attribute points. I think the advantages of this system are that it retains both the fairness of a point system and some of the unpredictability of a random one. I plan to use this and the living greyhawk HP method (max start, half +1 each level).
Sid_Patterson 07-30-03, 06:49 PM	Whatever works. Do you find that you have incredible amounts of spare time on your hands? Sounds like it. There are bunches of different combos one can try to generate Ability scores, but honestly the variation is minimal. Sounds like you're making a big process out of a set of numbers who's long term affect on game play is really minor.
Octiron 08-01-03, 05:24 PM	Ok. One vote for "much ado about nothing." However the mass of threads on the topic of methods for rolling character stats seems to contradict that. So, other than speculation about my personal life, does anyone have feedback on this method? The intent was to make characters that are consistently better than average without making super powerful characters that break the game. Most named NPCs in the books seem to have stats that run around 78 in range. If you were a player, would you be satisfied? Is it too complex? You actually roll less than any of the other methods. Is this the sort of thing you'd consider implementing as a DM?
Flak 08-01-03, 05:31 PM	If one of my players wanted to use it, I would allow it. It doesn't create overly powerful characters, and it isn't too complicated. I, personally, don't care how the stats are generated, as long as it isn't a way to create ubercharacters. In fact, if a player told me he wanted to just make up stats, and kept them reasonable, I would allow the character. But I do agree with Sid--the stats should not be over-emphasized in a campaign. It is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game.
Octiron 08-01-03, 05:49 PM	Do you feel this method "over-emphasizes" stats, any more than point-buy? Does using a balanced stat system make it harder to roleplay somehow? Does my mentioning this system make me a "roll-player" rather than a "role-player?"
DragonX10^9 08-01-03, 07:06 PM	Now, now. No need to get into that...that argument exists already on another thread. ;) Anyhow, I like this method and I think I'll use it. I would be satisfied with that character's abilities (the rogue, above), and probably any other PC generated with this method. It's pretty close to the kind of stats we use, anyway, and fairly easy to do.
Herr Doktor 08-01-03, 09:01 PM	I'll give it some playtesting time when next my group rolls up characters, then I'll let ya know what I think. The concept behind it seems sound enough... nothing too low, and nothing likely to be overwhelmingly high either.
Nadokla 08-01-03, 09:45 PM	I wouldn't see a problem with it. Though I don't see how it varies much from a point buy. If you roll the dice and then read the flip side, the totals of those two numbers will always total 7, so it is going to give you the 42 points in addition to your 6 for each. So, why not just give them a 6 for each and then 42 points to distribute? Though, this system does prevent the roleplaying potential of having a score below 10 that would give you a negative modifier. Again, not a problem with the system. Just that I prefer the randomness of rolling all the dice.
Sid_Patterson 08-01-03, 09:57 PM	Originally posted by Octiron So, other than speculation about my personal life, does anyone have feedback on this method? Woh, did I strike a cord there man? It just seems a small thing to worry about. Of the 4 or 5 ways that are mentioned in the PHB (I think) the desired level of Atribute scores are pretty much covered. You might get a one or two point difference if you're REALLY determined to track progress, but that's about the difference yet another Ability generating system will accomplish. Guess my jab about too much spare time was too harsh. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Didn't mean to get anyone in a huff. :rolleyes:
Octiron 08-02-03, 12:11 AM	Cool. Thanks for the input guys. Nadokla; Yes, you are right in that the totals of the two numbers always equal 7, and that makes it similar to just using 42 points. However, the difference is that it is still somewhat random. What I mean is the the numbers you roll will change the combinations you can make from them. I liked point systems, but I felt D&D was missing something if you don't get to roll. Maybe it's more of an aesthetic difference. btw, there is still a chance of getting an 8 (6+1+1), which is a negative modifier. If you want lower, you can go back to 1st edition and use the rule where you can give up two points in an attribute to add 1 to another.
Nadokla 08-02-03, 01:02 AM	True, I missed the 6+1+1 in my figuring. (Makes me think of the movie Clue...1+1+2+1...) Also, different races have plusses and minuses, so I guess you could still possibly end up with rather low numbers. Like I said, if it works for you and your group, I'm all for it. My group still rolls them up. If all the scores really stink, we just reroll the entire group (not just the bad score). After all, we play D&D to have fun. If you have three negative modifiers and nothing higher than a 14, you could be in for a tough life and should maybe stick to farming or running the bakery instead of adventuring. Though I am sure some would relish that roleplaying challenge.
Octiron 08-02-03, 01:47 AM	Yeah, this would of course be a good method for some groups and a bad one for others. Personal opinion. I happen to really like it and mostly wanted to see if anyone could spot some glaring problems with it that I might not have seen. I'm actually pleased to see people here (Nadokla, Flak, etc.) that don't seem to have had big problems with game balance under totally random rolls. Your gaming groups must be different than mine. Part of the inspiration for this method came from playing with very uneven characters, which seems to relegate some players to being hopelessly second string and a bit bored or resentful. It's an idea that just sort of popped into my head during a game when I was just toying with my d6's. It seemed like a good one so I thought I'd throw it into the lion's den and see how it fared. Never hurts to have another choice afterall.