Good Day Community
I was chatting with an old gaming buddy the other day when we started talking about our respective 5e campaigns. I was surprised to learn that he still enforces our old rolling method from our AD&D days for starting stats.
The method was (to me) still a bit harsh:
Roll 4d6 and remove the lowest dice, do that 9 times and take the 6 best.
That’s it. Get crummy stats, that’s ok, you’ll enjoy playing an underdog and showing those good gene pansies that it’s choice and strategy that make a character great.
He told me that his players grumble sometimes but otherwise the game goes on.
He then asked me what system I used.
I told him every player uses a single pre-generated set, when he asked me what the numbers were I think he nearly fell out of his chair.
18
16
14
14
12
10
He then spent the next 30 minutes saying I was a Monty Haul DM and how could I expect the players to struggle for anything in my game.
I explained that I started using this system in 3.5 when I observed it wasn’t fair for some characters to have higher stats then others using random dice rolls.
When I switched to the standard point buy in the book I observed that hybrid classes that needed 3 or more stats to be effective were always being far outperformed by core classes which only needed 2.
I decided that I would give a high stat set during my next new game and settled on the above stats. They were skeptical at first thinking their characters would be too powerful and the game wouldn’t be any fun. As we played several sessions I noticed that there seemed to be very little difference with two exceptions.
- The players were using skills all the time.
- Combat was taking half the time it usually did.
I asked them how they felt about the difficulty of the game and they said it was pretty much the same. The fighters were still taking damage, the cleric was still healing, and the wizard was casting the same spells he always did. I hadn’t made my encounters any more difficult or easier than normal and my story was its usual genius, that make even the angels weep.
It was then that we realized what was going on. The higher stats were letting the support classes HIT more. When I asked why they were using skills all the time they said it was because for the first time they actually had bonuses in those skills.
I decided to continue using those stats. 3.5, 4th, Pathfinder, and now 5th.
Am I missing out on something by using those stats? Should I go back to the point buy they give in the PHB or use the random rolling method? Am I spoiling my players and setting them up for disapointment when they move on to other groups?
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
I prefer the standard array (which appears lower than you or your friend). Or point buy. But the reality is that mechanical and numeric considerations are about a third of my design. I've run with all kinds of stuff, and I'm not fussy about the stats bc we're not missing anything, really.
Now 5E has a hard cap at 20. Everything below is "within expected range." I dont think I'd have a problem with all stats are 10 or all stats are 20. There will be minor adjustments, but on the whole, it's NBFD.
I also use standard array and have noticed no issues. If you're noticing no issues with your preferred array, then I see no reason to change.
I'm not sure what you mean by "players are using skills all the time." They don't get to "use skills." They can just state actions that may or may not call for an ability (skill) check by the DM. If they're pushing skill use, that's not smart play and you should probably let them know that.
Yeah, I, uh, do not at all agree with your characterization of your friend's method as harsh.
His method creates characters with significantly higher stats than the recommended 4d6 drop lowest method. Your method creates stats even higher.
Now, if you want high stats, there's nothing wrong with that. You simply need to be aware that yes, you're giving stats much higher than the game expects, and there may be changes in difficulty or playstyle as a result.
I allow standard array or point buy as well because I find most players don't like bad rolls and in 5e the focus for rolls (when needed) is on the ability modifier check so good rolls vs bad rolls can create a large gap in ability. Array or point buy are more equitable build methods. I think the array in the OP is a bit high because of ABI's already and they enable more feats as the obvious choice but if it works for you it's fair amongst players. As far as using more skills, passive checks won't change frequency, so are you saying they are more comfortable attempting more difficult actions?
Theros wrote:
If anything, 4d6 drop lowest, cherry-pick best of 9 is AWESOME. Especially with no cap...
Heck, the one in the book is legit more harsh, straight up
The game can be played with low or high stats. It just changes the way it feels, sometimes slightly and other times more dramatically.
If you like a game where players feel heroic higher abilities will help.
If you like a game where the players feel more like gritty mortals lower ability scores work.
So far, we've used standard array, point buy and rolling 4d6 drop one in order to create a PC, and we've had games that work well.
Personally, I like lower scores so the standard array and point buy works better for me. I'd even toy with rolling 3d6 for 7 attributes then keep the best 6.
I like lower scores because then I can always throw out magic items or special boons through game play that help PCs become more powerful. If the PCs in my games start too high, I feel like there is less room to grow and breathe.
I don't think it's a huge deal to have characters start with high stats, but I personally wouldn't play that way. I wouldn't call you a Monty Haul DM for that but I also wouldn't say your friend is harsh.
As a few people have already noted, the suggested method in the PHB is going to generate scores even lower than your friend's method.
I generally like PCs to start with their main stats in the 16-18 (after racial bonuses) range so that they have somewhere to go at fourth and eigth level.
My games use the 4d6 method, but only 6 times. If they roll an average of +1, they may choose to reroll. Then they roll 1d6, and allocate that roll between their scores as they like. Most of the time every player has at least one 20 at character creation.
I like the idea of rolling ability scores more than a standard array or point buy(which I did in 4th edition), because characters can then have dump stats, or scores less than 10. When the players have these low stats, they normally play that out. One cleric had a 6 INT, and the player played the character stupid, i.e. arguing with innkeepers for not allowing his mount inside the inn, or giving his money to other players because he didn't know what it was.
Simply, I think that if you take the chance to have low ability scores away from the players, while it probably won't change the game, it will change how they play their characters.
I think people often forget that the assumptions of AD&D and of the more modern editions are different.
In AD&D you have a much wider range of score ratings which are not of noticeable detriment to the character, and the effect of scores both above and below that range is less pronounced. As an example, I look at Dexterity and its effect on AC - in AD&D the difference between a 6 Dexterity and a 15 Dexterity was only 2 points of AC, while the diference between a 6 and 15 since 3rd edition is now twice that at 4 points.
Further, AD&D is designed with different math assumptions, so the amount of modifier that are "needed" are significantly different - I've seen numerous successful AD&D characters that had no ability scores which provided modifiers at all (the equivalent to everything be 10 or 11 in modern versions of the game), and I know that such a character would have an extremely difficult time in modern D&D.
Those things should be kept in mind when comparing ability score generation methods between the two games.
To summarize and clarify: His method for AD&D is no more, and no less, generous than your method for 5th edition - and if you want to really blow his mind, tell him this: "At least I'm not this guy on the D&D forums called AaronOfBarbaria, he lets his players roll 4d6 drop lowest in sets of six scores until they get a set that they are happy with, or they can use point buy if they'd rather - and he intends on transitioning to just letting his players arbitrarily pick what they want their scores to be in the future."
I've seen low and high scores in D&D it can have an impact but not too badly so. I use the standard 4d6 drop 1, with a twist, I tell my players to re-roll 1s. I find that works because it gives them a safety net from truely crap rolls.
but at the end of the day it's all about what you wanna do. I've even in one game once (it was conan d20 and I was deliberatly wanting over the top chars) used 1d10+8
Roll 4d6 and remove the lowest dice, do that 9 times and take the 6 best.
You are both giving out much higher stats than the rules as written so technically you are both Monty Hall GMs! 
Stats are generally lower in 5E, so even moreso if you carry it forward into 5E.
I also use the standard array or point buy. If I want the game to be easier for my players, than I prefer to do it with story rather than bumping up their stats.
One of the biggest changes (improvements) to 5E is in balancing (bounded accuracy), so personally I would highly recommend using the standard rules first - at least give the game a chance to work as it was designed, then adjust if it doesn't suit your tastes. However, in the end I think stats are overrated and don't make a huge difference.
I have always used this method, ~~"roll 4d6 six times and drop the lowest die to generate 6 scores", but reroll any one's one time
We have one character with stat like this 18, 17, 16, 16, 15, 10 but we also have one characterr with 17, 15, 14, 10, 10, 10 and another one with 15, 13, 10, 10, 8, 8
but I don't like the low stats for Point Buy either, 15 is the limit
But this is the Low Power D&D version
I’d like to clear up the players using skills thing. Keep in mind, when I started using my higher stats, 3e had just came out. I’m sure there are more than a few people on this forum who remember those days. It was exciting having a new system. The new rules made combat engaging and tactical in ways that AD&D never seemed able to do (at least without some homebrew rules or creative story telling).
While we all embraced attacks of opportunity, feats, and a robust magic system; skills were something we had a hard time wrapping our brains around. Players dumped their skill points into things their class was naturally good at, but for the most part all the rest of the skills were 0 or -1 and thus ignored.
When I started using my higher stats, my players had more bonuses to go around.
INT stopped being a dump stat increasing the total skill points. Skills such as profession, bluff, and handle animal were now something that had a + in front of it. The character’s still weren’t great at them, but now they were more willing to give it a shot during the game. This sparked a new interest in the rogue, bard, and ranger classes, which were considered subpar by my player’s (and still are, according to some in the Players Help section).
The point I’m trying to make is, the higher stats opened our eyes to the potential of the system and allowed (in my opinion) an easy way to experiment while still having an optimized character.
I know that all these things could have been brought to light by a good DM using the techniques we talk about daily on these boards. But sometimes math can help to.
Thanks for the input everyone. I’m glad I made the post, it’s given me a wider perspective. I don’t think I’ll ever go back to random rolls ever again, but I might try the standard array they give in the book at my next new game.
In 5e, I'm allowing all players to roll, and if the accumulated bonuses don't exceed standard array/point buy (or they just don't like the stats, 18 and a 3 for example), then they can discard the roll and use the array or points. This gives them a little to have something unique, I think, without gimping.
I use the 4D6 drop the lowest system typically. Using this, every so often I get a player with very substandard stats and it's been my position that if that player won't find it fun to play with those stats, they may replace their rolls with the 27 point buy.
I frequently have players who sit on the fence with this one since they'll have scores something like...
17
6
7
13
12
10
...and they've got to decide what is worse, to give up their 17 that they can't replace with point buy (15 is the max), or to suck it up and deal with a couple very low rolls.
For my part, I like to see a distribution of high, mid, and low rolls as that makes for an interesting character, but if you want to run a campaign where everyone is rocking ridic stats that's up to you and what you find to be fun.
I enjoy a little randomness, but not erratic randomness. I prefer the bell curve of random stats to be a little tighter than the standard rolling methods. I like that stats are eventually capped at 20, but there should be room to grow into such god-like talent. Even the most genetically gifted person still needs to put some effort into reaching his full potential in an attribute. Conan might have been physically gifted, but he would never had been as strong as an Ogre were it not for his life experiences. While weaknesses add depth to a character, hero's are rarely crippled by a completely debilitating attribute. Even for a character like Elric of Melnibone a 6 Strength (-2 modifier) should be sufficiently poor to represent his handicap.
For PCs and Major NPCs (such as villains or rivals):
Roll 3d6, add two of those dice together, then add +4. This gives you the choice of going for a high score or a low score, in case you really want a weakness for your character. That is a number between 2-12 + 4, and generates scores between 6-16, with the average score being slightly over 12. This gives modifiers ranging from -2 to +3. Generate six scores this way, then arrange them as desired.
For Generic NPCs (such as commoners):
Roll 2d6, then add +3. That generates stats between 5-15, with the average being 10. This gives modifiers from -3 to +2. Generate all six attributes in the order they are rolled.
All game systems have that point where the numbers reach a point where the system breaks. 3e began to buckle under such strain as low as level 6 depending on the group and campaign. For me, 3e and Pathfinder got to the point where I didn't want to run it at about levels 10 to 13, though I have ran both systems to 20+.
When a group starts with higher stats, they begin the game closer to its breaking point before the first experience points are even earned.
Many players want to be heroic and love high stats and powerful builds. Many DMs happily oblige their players in this request. Then both player and DM alike wonders why the game peters out mid way through the levels. Stat and power bloat is often a reason why.
Want your game to have a better chance of making it to level 20? Start with lower stats. If you want more power, resist the urge to assign higher stats, and begin play at a higher level with the lower stats (adjusted by the increases the game's rules gives you).
It will be interesting to see where 5e's break point is. Not so much just the theoretical mathematical point, but more importantly, where the weight of the numbers, skills, powers and such lead to the tedium, boredom and burn out that causes many campaigns to fail long before level 20.
Low or high stats or all characters aren't that big of a deal. It will change the feel to being more gritty or more heroic depending on your choice, but the game will adapt. IMO it's serious imbalance among characters that's trouble. The problem was particulary acute in 1E and 2E, where strength was too nice, especially exceptional strength. Also, for big ranges of the stat, it was essentially irrelevant.
Kishri wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I take all the A through 6 cards from a deck of standard playing cards, hand them over the players, tell them to shuffle them. Then deal out 6 hands of 4 each. These then become the equivalent of "4d6" rolls and they drop 1 from each hand, leaving a value from 3-18. Arrange as desired.
Has about the same range/average as 4d6 drop 1, but prevents characters from being too vastly different from themselves if one person rolls really high or really low.
Oraibi wrote:
For my 5E campaign I've had the players roll their characters with the standard 4d6 drop low with one exception -- they roll as if they're creating two characters then can pick one of the two sets of stats.
For most the decision between the two sets was very easy since one horrible roll spoiled one set (twice we had a score of 5 come up for someone and another got a 6). The players were not upset at all having a 7 or 8 knowing they had passed on a 5 or 6.
After adding in their race and class adjustments it's made for a nice mix of scores:
Human Cleric: 13, 11, 17, 9, 16, 12
Elf Ranger: 14, 17, 12, 8, 14, 10
1/2 Elf Sorcerer: 9, 12, 14, 12, 9, 18
Elf Druid: 11, 15, 13, 10, 16, 7
Gnome Bard: 12, 15, 13, 14, 13, 16
Dragonborn Fighter: 18, 13, 14, 11, 10, 14
(Me? Given a choice I'll always roll!) ~~~ and as a dm? I don't really CARE what the Pc stats are. I'm already writing adventures for whatever specific characters are generated. And I assure you, I can kill off any character, regardless of the #s on their paper....