One of my players last week got me to roll some dice for him for character generation. He wanted a lightning sorcerer and he was looking at the Storm Sorcerer. As a DM I was wanting to see him in action as I have not seen the Storm Sorcerer get used yet just Dragon Sorcerers (fire).
The player ended up taking a Dragon Sorcerer (lightning) anyway which was fine. On 4d6 drop the lowest the rolled stats were.
10
12
13
14
15
16
After racials something like 14 strength (maybe 16), 16 cha and 17 con.
My idea was a Mountain Dwarf Storm Sorcerer. The reason for mountain Dwarf is the armor and weapon proficinecy as I wanted to use a battle axe in one hand and run around using shocking grasp resorting to ranged spells or fly.
Now I am reasonably sure being a melee sorcerer is not a great idea and if it doesn't work out you can always go back to being ranged. But those stats kind of enable the build I suppose its not something I think I would try with the default array due to lack of hit points and 15 charisma max.
The axe part is because Dwarf and so you can threaten attacks of opportunity not any real desire to use the axe that much after level 5 or so.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Sounds like he is saying the method he uses for generating ability scores results in higher results than the one you used.
4d6 and drop one is what my own tables usually roll with, so I'd certainly allow it.
Yes, I would allow a perfectly normal character in my campaign. What's the issue?
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
@Zardnaar: Are the stats your concern? They seem realtively normal for the 4d6 drop the lowest method (maybe slightly above average for that method, but not exceptionally so).
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
my DM has us roll 4d6 drop the lowest, up to 3 times and take the best set. if we don't like the set, or the set is actually way worse than array, we can just point buy or have someone else, like the DM roll up our stats. I roll fine, but i saw one of our players get 3s, even on 4d6.
In another thread somewhere I proposed an idea that I want to use sometime. It started with the hard-core old-school rule of 3d6 x 6, in order. But then you also have a point buy on top of that. I forgot how many points I suggested....I think 12 worked out mathematically to be equivalent to the normal point-buy. The idea is that you get some interesting random variation (unlike the cookie cutter builds you get using RAW point buy or stat array), but with a smaller standard deviation than straight up rolling. A generous DM could just give more points, of course.
As a DM, I would allow those scores.
However, I am also a player in another campaign. In that campaign, the DM had us use the point system described on page 13 of the PHB. After a bit of complaining from the players, he granted us +1 to any one stat at the end.
Using the point system, those attributes go over the limit by 9 points (assuming that the 16 was a 15 with the +1 placed there... since the highest score you can get using the point system is a 15). So, our DM wouldn't allow those scores 
shadowknave wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I'm confused about the step between his player asking Zaardner to roll some dice and Zaardner making a character.
And I'm guessing that the player asking his DM to roll his stats is one of those quirks of Zaardner's group. My group - or at least me as DM - would be fine with a player rolling his stats at home without any witnesses. Although we never seem to do so, if only because there's a spark of fun to be had watching each other roll.
As with just about everyone else who has commented so far, yes I would allow it. It's the equivalent of a 32 point buy (following the logical trend resulting in a 16 being worth 12 points in the point buy system). That's not OP, maybe slightly more powerful than the typical point buy character, but not enough that I would be at all worried about the character overshadowing the rest of the party.
Razaga wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
In my group we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. After rolling all the scores, the player has the option of replacing all his scores with 15,14,13,12,10,8. This rule ensures that no player ends up with a loser character
Some players like to play a characters with low scores, but many players don't, so I don't like to force it upon them. On the other hand we all like to have a chance to get lucky.
I personally prefer using the point buy system. Rolling for stats is just to unfair and unbalanced. It's also not allowed in AL.
If a player in my campaign chooses to roll their stats instead of using point buy, they can use whatever numbers they roll, but there will be no rerolls. All 18s? Go for it! All 3s? Sucks to be you.
I offer standard Array and Rolling. If one rolls they do have to take it however or as the risk of it is the fun part. I do however allow one reroll of an ability score.
Satyrn wrote:
Some people may enjoy that but when you have one PC that could be a professional football player and another that couldn't qualify for the junior varsity, it wasn't fun.
Zardnaar wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I think for 5E I'm going to go with allowing players to choose to either use the standard array or point buy... OR, let them roll their stats and then list both the rolled stats and the standard array in order from highest to lowest as six pairs of numbers... For five of those pairs they can take the higher of the two numbers, but for one pair of their choice they have to take the lower of the two.
For example, if you rolled 16,13,12,12, 09, 06...
Stats Array Actual Scores
16 > 15 16
13 < 14 14
12 < 13 12 **
12 = 12 12
09 < 10 10
06 < 08 08
** could have taken a 13 in the first score, but chose to take a 12 so as not to have a 09 or 06 in the others...
Unless the players get a number of really good rolls, they won't end up with significantly better overall scores than the standard array, but won't end up with anything much worse if they mostly get really bad ones.
It also gives them the chance to sacrifice a higher score in one ability for a more mediocre score in that ability in order to minimize having to take a disatrous roll in another ability. Or to have a "dump score" if they like the possibility of having a really low score in one ability.
Orethalion wrote:
If I allowed a Diplomat Minotaur Barbarian, you can allow this.
OoftaMeg wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
thewok wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
My method tends to be roll 4d6 drop the lowest. Do this 8 times and keep the 6 best.
Back when there were stat requirements for classes like specialist mages I also allowed players to bump up the required stats to meet the minimums. The only caveat was that they had to have put their highest rolls there first.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I remember the last time this came up I summarized by saying
You wanted to play this:
Rolled poorly, ended up playing this:
MechaPilot wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Currently, this is my method of rolling for stats. 2 stats at 5d6 keep the best 3, 2 stats at 4d6 and keep the best 3, and 2 stats at 3d6. You can re-roll one stat of your choice with the number of dice used for that stat. I will also allow you to swap one pair of stats so that you can have a good prime stat for your class.
I experiment with how to roll stats. I may try out Mecha's method next time and see how that works.
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
High abilty scores are not really a problem unless you combine it with power gaming the best feats and classes. Some classes are a bit MAD for the default array.
Zardnaar wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I really am with Oofta on this one. Forced rolled stats (as in: you have to use the result) are bad when the goal of Pen&Paper is supposed to be that everyone has fun. Players will not be having fun if they roll really bad stats and they will also be bothered if that one metagamer-min-maxer type has super high stats. Certainly there will always be players who don't mind it and will be like "I always wanted a guy who can't do anything and always will embarass himself in front of the party", but the risk that a player who doesn't enjoy this rolls low is there if you go for rolled stats.
By simply disallowing rolled stats and go for point-buy / standard array only, you completely eliminate the risk of someone not enjoying the game because of his stats (or someone else's stats).
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Well the rules have the following:
If you [...] don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
I'm still confused about what the point of this thread is. It seems like Zardnaar is creating a character for a player using only material from the Player's Handbook. Is he asking if other DMs allow dragon sorcerers? Or mountain dwarves? Or ability scores? What exactly do you want from us, Zard?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
My reasons for supporting point buy are simple.
- I want stats to be secondary to character vision.
- I want to ensure that everybody at the table has the same chance at an awesome character as everyone else.
- If I want people to have higher stats (which is not necessary in 5E) I'll give them more points and work out something for buying up to an 18 in an ability.
- With random rolls, for every "super" chararacter there is a less than awesome character. There are frequently completely gimped characters.
- On a fairly regular basis you're going to have at least one character with a stat of 5 or below. Anyone with that low of a stat is not just suboptimal, they are handicapped.
- Some people's dice are just plain cursed. I had a rogue in a game the other night that rolled 1s or 2s for every single damage roll the entire night. Had we been rolling for stats, I don't think he would have had a stat above 6.
My question for people that support rolling for stats is simple. What's the goal? Why make people roll? If you want more powerful characters, why not just hand out more points for a point buy?
I should clarify before answering that these answers are coming from a DM that lets players get their ability scores however they wish, including that they can deliberately choose their scores with no point-buy scheme, and has players that happen to choose to roll scores.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
D&D doesn't do a great job of modeling minutiae after real life, movies, or novels. If we want to establish a metric for comparisons and values, it's probably wiser to use what the game itself is giving us instead of trying to bridge the gaps between game system and other media that was never intended to be an exact mirror (justifying anecdotes with fictional anecdotes). So in this case, we can look at what the book says about stat arrays, including the AL, and assume the game itself views the standard array--15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (I think--don't have the book open in front of me currently)--as a fully competent adventurer. So a 15 in your primary abilitys core is considered, at the very least, a fully competent adventurer. Whether you think the standard array is sufficient or not is an entirely different story, and it's completely okay to have any particular view on it. Just try not to marginalize different schools of thought when you do so. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you wade into a discussion with an absolute position and allow no room for a different perspective, you aren't really engaging in a discussion so much as flying your own flag proudly. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the way you play the game, but you should be open to the notion of others beyond your own experience appreciating different things in different ways,
In my own experience, rolling yields far higher results than point-buys and static arrays. So the comments about a DM essentially getting their jollies on the feeble and allegedly useless PCs doesn't even reconcile with my table. They are demonstrably superior to what a point-buy would have allowed. But that's another anecdote that doesn't preclude the possibility at someone else's table. Then again, this is an old and heated topic that crops up from time to time, so I probably shouldn't be terribly surprised.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
At work, we do an occasional Friday night basketball game. It's fun because none of us are any good and it's just to blow off steam.
If I were playing competitively and my life depended on it and the rest of the team had the skill level of a LeBron James? I'd feel like a loser. The game would not be fun.
If you truly roll 4d6, drop the lowest there's roughly a 70% chance that someone at the table will have a stat of 5 or lower. That's not "a little low", that's mentally, physically or emotionally handicapped.
I understand that some people do it along with other methods and that's fine. I understand that some people want higher scores (which really isn't necessary), the simple solution seems to be more points to spend.
But if you're a person that says nobody ever has a problem with it and that it's always great? Well maybe you should look in the mirror. Because maybe you're just being an a******e to some of your players who don't want to rock the boat. Or that couple that were really into RP and building fun characters that left the game? Maybe that was my wife and me.
I like rolling stats, but I'm also fine with point buy. I think the game has changed a lot since 2nd edition where stats didn't provide bonues until much higher levels but then also didn't hinder your player until much lower as well, there was a bigger middle ground before the bonuses/penalties set in, for instance; dexterity provided no penalties or bonuses between 7-14. Nowadays, if you have a 7 dexterity then you have a -2 penalty to everything it modifies so players are less likely to enjoy a character that has a stat that low.
I've heard that in some cases that when players have had to roll that if they didn't at least have, for example, a total of +3 (when taking into account all stat bonuses and penalties) that they were able to roll again, specifically so that they didn't feel underpowered. I can't remember though if that was an optional rule in the DMG or a house rule that I'd read else.
I'd say that for me, for the "main stat" in 5e I'd be fine with a 14 minimum.
Just as an aside, when using my method of roll 4d6 keep 3, 8 times and drop lowest stats I ended up with the following after 8 rolls. It doesn't prove anything, other than that I like rolling stats and looking at number arrays.
13 ; 13 ; 13 ; 15 ; 15 ; 16
12 ; 13 ; 13 ; 15 ; 15 ; 16
12 ; 13 ; 15 ; 15 ; 16 ; 16
12 ; 14 ; 14 ; 15 ; 17 ; 17
9 ; 11 ; 12 ; 13 ; 13 ; 15
11 ; 11 ; 11 ; 12 ; 16 ; 17
9 ; 12 ; 13 ; 14 ; 14 ; 14
13 ; 14 ; 15 ; 15 ; 16 ; 16
Doing this actually reminds me of playing baldur's gate and rerolling until I had a stat total of at least 84 before I would make my character.
OoftaMeg wrote:
shadowknave wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Anyway this has severely jumped off the rails. My original point was this: The "secret" reason to roll 4d6, drop lowest, over an array is the opportunity to produce super characters. Of course, there's the risk of an subpar character, but the dice are stacked in favor of higher values than the array produces so the reward outweighs the risk.
And the idea that subpar characters aren't playable characters is a severe misconception.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe claim that people roll 4d6 for the power if false for multiple reasons.
1) Intent. People who roll for stats doing it because they like to roll, not because they have super powered characters in mind.
2) Power gamers didn't create it. Gygax did.
3) The array was created after 4d6 had been around for decades.
4) You are more accurate if you say that the array was created for people who want to play weaker characters, since it was created after the standard (not powerful) 4d6 method.
Feel free to play weaker characters if you wish. I will continue to use the standard 4d6 method. If I want to produce power PCs, I'll have them roll 5d6 or even 6d6 and take the best 3.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
First, I want to apologize a bit for my crotchety rant. I've never liked, nor understood the appeal of "roll the dice and what you get is what you get." When we truly followed that, characters with awful stats committed "suicide by combat" on their first adventure. In most cases when I've rolled for stats we just had a system that people rolled multiple characters until they had one that was decent. Much like what I do with D&D computer games.
Second, I did typo upthread, my wife's character did have a high stat of 13. I guess this case just sticks with me because when we started the game we both stated our strong preference for point buy and when my wife rolled a lousy character the DM just shrugged, laughed and said "Gee, that's too bad".
He was a nice guy in other respects, this was just one huge blind spot. I had to talk my wife out of quitting the game after that first session and (without permission) we just rewrote her character so that it was more balanced. Yeah, I know. We were cheating bastards. It was that or have her commit "suicide by combat" but we had a back story and had put thought into the character.
The important thing is that she had a vision of what she wanted and a bad set of rolls meant she couldn't play the character she had envisioned.
I had written a little program a while back to roll stats (because I'm not a statistician). Maybe I'll dig it up tonight and get some real numbers and do some analysis.
So I'm done ranting for the moment. Just be aware that the guy who rolled poorly probably isn't going to complain because of social pressure. Most, however, will not enjoy playing their character as much as they could have. And if Marvin the Wizard decides to go down in a blaze of not-so-glorious glory on his first adventure, well I wouldn't be surprised.
I think what I find most humorous about the discussion is that magic users are the least dependent on stats... spells like sleep, arcane lock, blur, invisibility, darkness, disguise self, spider climb, fly,.. any spell that doesn't use an attack roll or saving throw, functions the same for a caster with a 20 in their spellcasting stat as a spellcaster with a 3 in their spellcasting stat. And there are even spells that boost stats. So if you rolled terrible stats, and still wanted to play the character, despite being subpar, the best class for you would be a spellcaster. You will never be exceptional at combat, but you'll be functional in defensive and utility spells.
Martial classes can't even say that... a subpar fighter won't have a decent dex to have a decent AC in light or medium armor, and won't have the strength necessary to wear heavy armor.
A subpar rogue won't hit often enough or for enough damage. And will be very squishy with a subpar dexterity. And neither the fighter nor rogue will have any decent proficiency in skills due to their subpar scores.
So of all the adventuring classes available to a subpar character, a wizard is their best option. They can't prepare a bunch of spells, but they aren't limited by their subpar stats on the number of spells they can add to their spellbook. And there are ritual spells.
OoftaMeg wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
I wrote an app that rolled 4d6, took best 3 and then did some calculations. I'm sure a mathemetician out there could do this more elegantly but ... you use the tools ya got, right?
Anyway I looked at the average character and determined what there lowest and highest numbers were and then figured out what percentage fell into which category.
Low
3: less than 1%
4: 2%
5: 4%
6: 9%
7: 14%
8: 19%
9: 21%
10: 16%
11: 9%
12: 4%
13: 1%
14: less than 1%
15: less than 1%
16: less than 1%
High
9: less than 1%
10: less than 1%
11: less than 1%
12: 1%
13: 5%
14: 13%
15: 22%
16: 27%
17: 21%
18: 9%
Conclusions:
- The less than 1% did occur at least once ... just less than 1% of the time.
- I rolled 100,000 "characters" to average things out
- 15% of characters are going to have at least one stat of 6 or less. Nearly a third have a 7 or less.
- 70% should have 1 stat of 9 or lower.
- My wife really did have a bad dice day ... less than a 6% chance of a high of 13. Then again, that's a little better chance than rolling a nat 1 on a d20.
- My real issue (and one that needs a little more analysis, probably tomorrow night) is how often is there a large disparity between low and high numbers?
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I moved away from rolling dice in 3.0.
shadowknave wrote:
Kahless wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
i find it particularly insulting that D&D writers since 2nd edition have continued publishing novels about characters they play with extraodinarily high stats and powers, and then have people - generally in much smaller groups, play with array or dice mechanisms with practically no chance in 9 hells of reproducing those abilities. It is even more disgusting that these same power gamers encourage their customer base to micromanage other players and label others power gamers, and then chat about some eejit low Stat NPCs, and pretend all their characters are built that way. If I begin with a new DM following modern tradition, and start citing Seven Sisters, Drizzt, or Lord High Mighty Elminster attributes without stating their names, the DM is going to probably laugh at me and call me a cheesemongering power gamer.
This is like the ancient Chinese system. The best rank was number 1, but in ancient Korea, the highest rank you could get was 3, because the Chinese were always able to get higher rank. All other countries had to go to china for ranking and it was always less than what the Chinese could get in terms of titles, education qualifications, etc.
Array is basically saying "ok, so there's these olympic champions in the novels.. but thats not you.." 3 cheers for microgaming.
do you suppose in the future novels they are going to retcon all these characters with dozens of tomes and manuals of attribute increases? Or just assume they were all level 20 as soon as they left their villages at the ripe old age of 15, and then every adventure was actually a quest for the next epic boon?
disclaimer: while i found the initial stat system to be insulting, i discovered it's not so bad when you have all 5 feats in place, the stats can be somewhat decent, as long as everyone else is following the same stat generation rules.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Kahless wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Personal experience
I did use rolled stats. Twice as a player and once as a DM. I didn’t like it. In both occasions as a player, I rolled well, but still… There was a sense of disparity that I couldn’t shake it off. In the second my max stat was 15 because every one of my rolls was around 13-15, and I couldn’t create my character concept – and the DM left no alternative. As a DM, I saw some players getting two 18s while other players went with barely one 16. I know I’m a huge perfectionist but everyone using the same “points” in ability score did felt right. Of course, both my characters weren’t actually underpowered, but the sense across the table was shared.
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
So the goals of die rolls seems to be
- Have some characters be numerically superior to other characters.
- Some players will have more options on what kind of character they can build.
- Stop people from playing the character they want to play (no builds from the char-op boards).
- To have "better" characters (numerically superior)
I disagree with the first two goals. There shouldn't be winners and losers based on a set of die rolls.
As far as the last point, if you want more powerful characters, hand out more points or use a higher stat array. I will say, that high stats are not as necsssary as they were in previous editions.
My goal for character creation is that I want stats to be secondary to their character vision. Whether that vision from some novel or because they want to min/max their character I don't really care. Rolling for stats frequently (not always) puts that on it's head. Roll poorly? Looks like you're running a wizard or a tanky dwarven fighter. Roll well? Any class is open, including some of the MAD classes.
I want to ensure that everybody at the table has the same awesome character as everyone else.
Bloodscythe wrote:
I usually let some of the rolls fill in details for the character. More often than not, what I envision the character being like ends up changing at least a little bit, sometimes drastically, when I actually put it into play.
Putting aside the debate about how much of a monster I am, I'm still not sure what the actual intended topic of this thread is.
After reading the original post I'm also not sure what is happening. Who is making the character? Half the post seems to hint that the poster is the DM but then it switches to them making choices about what to make the character. I also think 'allow' is an interesting choice of words.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I've run sessions where everyone in the group is a kid, with very low stats. It's easy enough to adjust the game to allow for it. Heck, DMs do it all the time the other way around, setting up more difficult encounters to provide their players a consistent challenge.
The issue becomes when one person has very low stats and another has super high stats. That's when we get DMs posting things like "Bob is dominating combat while the other players are bored" or "If I make it a challenge for Bob's character I kill Sue's character."
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Do people have no understanding of psychology 101? Sense of fairness is derived from comparing what we have to what other people have.
For example, 50 years ago Ralph and his family were doing well if they had a 1500 square foot house, a 20 inch black and white television and a car. He felt he and his neighbors are on more or less even footing so he thought life was fair.
Suppose we fast forward to the present. Stan has a 2300+ square foot houses, multiple big flat screen tvs and cars along with a bunch of doodads like smart phones and computers that Ralph never had access to.
Assume that they both work the same job with the same qualifications for the same company for the same amount of time. If Ralph is still in the same house with the same tv and one car. In the vast majority of cases Ralph is going to feel envious of Stan and feel he's being treated unfairly.
Why? Because we compare what we have to what people in our social circle with similar situations have. It's human nature.
In a game if Ralph has significantly worse stats than Stan, the odds are he's going to feel the situation is unfair. In other words if everybody has terrible stats, it's fair. If everyone has mediocore or fantastic, or stats that they believe represents their character best it's fair.
But force someone to keep a character with bad stats relative to everyone else for an entire campaign especially when they've expressed their feelings? That's unfair.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Here's another option:
1) Everybody roll six stats by whatever method the DM chooses.
2) Anybody has the option of copying the stat array rolled by anybody else (and arranging to suit).
3) Alternately, anybody can choose, post-roll, to use point buy.
There. Now there are no hard feelings at the table.
I have to admit I like rolling, for the anti-cookie-cutter reason expressed above. But I also acknowledge that for many (but not all) players it lessens the fun to have significantly lower stats than others at the table.
MechaPilot wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Feel like I'm beating this poor horse to death, but if two persons (or schools of thought), absolute poles apart, aren't able to step out of a given perspective to entertain another set of values for a moment, it's less a discussion and more a parade of preference. Even perceptions of fairness are going to differ wildly from table to table and person to person. Some people view arrays and point-buys as a restriction--a box to fit a character into. Others are not so similarly limited, because they are able to essentially fine-tune their character as they see fit. I'm going to again contest that the fundamental issue here isn't whether rolling or point-buying is right, but whether there is a gross disconnect or miscommunication surrounding the social contracts of the tables in question. It should never get to the point that someone is mandating character penalties because someone is "gaming" the system (biting a bullet to re-roll, in the case of the example above).
Often, identifying the problem at the tables in question is going to be an easy one. In Oofta's case, the DM flat out ignored reservations about the character generation method. This isn't a failure of rolling or point-buy, this is a failure on the DM's part to give any shared control of the hobby to the players. And in this same example, the specific reservation about the roll method is what happened, and the DM again flat out ignored their concerns.
In The_White_Sorcerer's case, I believe the point being made is that the players knew and agreed to the generation system, so the thought of their character intentionally biting the bullet was not even relevant to the issue. At that point, you're looking at a situation where someone says "Yes, I know the risks of rolling and I'm fully onboard. Oh look, I rolled poorly; I changed my mind. Let me roll again until I get something awesome, except at the expense of any given session in which the other players are dragging around a suicidal anchor."
Any impasse on this subject should be something that is resolved before play even starts, in my opinion. Communication is part of the equation. It's probably harder to do with complete strangers, especially with ones who are used to doing things a certain way, but everyone also needs to own up to the potential inevitability of incompatible playstyles.
I'm gonna use your Stat Generation idea, Aaron, next time I DM a new party.
I'm curious to see what everyone would choose. I suspect there would be several stats below 10, and very few 18s. Certainly no one with multiple 18s, and probably no 18 if another score was 16 or 17. I just think there'd be a lot of hesitation to go uber.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Forgotten Realms heroes (circa 2e) are a horrible thing to measure up to. It's kinda like an arms race between a couple of six year old kids.
Kid 1: My hero has rockets!
Kid 2: Oh yeah? Well mine has LASER ROCKETS!
Kid 1: That's nothing compared to my Mountain Breaker Punch-Kick Wings!
Take Alias, for example: 17/17/17/17/17/17.
Drizzt: 13/20/15/17/17/14. (Drow racials being +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Con, -2 Cha at the time)
Fzoul's array is 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
Also, Conan and Sherlock are not D&D. D&D is not tailored to other fiction and fantasy worlds, even if it borrows themes or elements from them. Other food for thought: level progression is not tied to time passage. Someone going from a 14 to a 20 over the course of their "career" could be a month or two in a megadungeon. Not much to be gained trying to connect abstractions to arbitrary examples or static values, imo. If you're using a standard array, 15 Str is exceptionally strong. Probably less so if you're using a point-buy or rolling.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Removed some baiting, which is against the Code of Conduct.
http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
Let's keep it civil, please.
Orethalion wrote:
Corwin77 wrote:
I love playing character of all kinds of stats. I've played a guy with just pitiful stats and he was awesome, knowing he could face things head on he always look for ways to hit problems from the sides, both in combat and in social situations. I played a guy with God like stats and he was fun because of the havoc he caused his fellow adventurers, I recall him running down and beating up a werewolf then breaking off his attack on it and falling back to help a party member letting the werewolf escape but saving the party. He then left the party to go for help only to return and find they had captured by the werewolf he had easily beaten up just before....
I simply don't care what stats I get, I know others do. I am in the boat with those who let their players generate their stats however they want. Me I would roll.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion, I believe you are either being naive or arguing in bad faith. That's just my opinion based on being an independant reader of what's been said here thus far. I think Bloodscythe has the right of it. His assessment rings more true to me. Let me ask you a question, Orethalion. Do you believe there are players who do approach rolling with disingenuous intent? That there are those who roll but are only happy with higher than average results? And will either sabotage a bad character or refuse to play one until they get the higher power results they really want? And if you do believe those players exist, why are you arguing so vehemently against the notion that someone here who has expressed those very sentiments might be one? It seems like your white knighting is misplaced here.
A few things.
First, I probably shouldn't post anything before my first cup of coffee. 
Second, I don't recall him ever saying he wanted to roll 4d6. Maybe I missed it.
Even if he did, it is possible to get truly horrible builds. I rolled up a party over the weekend and one of the characters had stats so low I wasn't going to post because it sounds like I'm making it up. The numbers were 4, 4, 8, 9, 11, 11. Any character with stats that low is physically, mentally or emotionally crippled. Maybe he looks like the elephant man to boot.
Asking someone to play that character "because rules" would be like asking someone in a wheelchair to play basketball with a pro team. Basketball with his fellow wheelchair bound buddies could be a lot of fun. Playing with the pros? Just embarrassing.
I also think that there may be a big difference in the way we approach the game. I come up with a character concept(s) long before we even have a session zero. You appear to want to build a character based on what you roll.
Last but not least, I did a little more analsyis, mostly just to satisfy my own curiosity.
- If you roll 4d6 you are going to get better than the point buy average about 65% of the time. Which means that in the average table of 6, 2 of the players would have been numerically better off with point buy.
- If you want point buy to give you approximately the same numbers as roll 4d6, the point buy amount should be 31.
- If you reroll die rolls outside of the 8-15 range the average is 27.
Just to reiterate my main point, in 70% of the cases there's going to be a significant difference between the numerically "best" character in an average group and the "worst" character. Sometimes it's going to be a huge difference like my poor guy with 4's playing at the same table with 18s and low stat of 14.
I don't see what value that adds to the game.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Diversity is in the eye of the beholder. And no, I don't see why having 1 person that does double the damage and has nearly twice the hit points, more options, wears any kind of armor without penalty, more feats, more ... everything than another person at the table benefits the game.
Diversity comes from personalities, backgrounds, builds, role playing. Not stats.
As far as the character you built. They won't just suck at reflex saves, but they'll also be significantly less effective in and out of combat. If intelligence is roughly equivalent to IQ a 5 int is not just bad, it's severely mentally handicapped. Someone like this ... I don't know if someone with that low of an intelligence could function in a real world combat environment. You can just choose to ignore it of course.
You also keep building a human in heavy armor ... what if I wanted to play a monk? A rogue? A wood elf or half orc? A character with a 4 intelligence is going to have the same intelligence as a baboon*.
You say these are playable characters. I disagree, unless you just ignore the low numbers and don't care that you will never pull your weight.
[EDIT] Actually the baboon may have a higher wisdom depending on which race you choose. 
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
If someone chose to roll and then refused to play based on the results I would likely kick them from the group as it is a sign of immaturity IMHO and you are likely to have problems with said player later on anyway. I'm not forcing them to roll they have the choice. ANy player who is gonna throw a wobbly when they do not get their own way isn't worth having in my experience.
At best I would let them revert to the default array they would not be allowed to roll again in the future though even if another player is rocking around with 3 18's or something like that.
The only rule I have with rolled stats is roll in front of me. I played 1st ed last year and I think everyone had an 18 except for me with my 17.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I find arrays and point-buys confining. Builds are usually predictable with small variations, whereas builds depending on multiple ability scores to pull off are not on the table at all. Agonizing over fiddling with points just doesn't suit my approach to the game. I enjoy the risk/reward of rolling, and I've eaten some pretty ugly results in the past that have produced some longtime favorite characters. This approach isn't for everyone though. Some people like more control, and that's totally fine. It's certainly not some hidden agenda meant to punish someone at the table.
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I find the best reason to roll stats is because the people at the table want to, I honestly don't care about all the arguments one way or the other.
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
I know that's not a politically correct thing to say and I know there are exceptions to the rule, but I think many if not most people who like rolling for stats enjoy it because they assume they'll get higher stats. Approximately 65% of the time they'll be correct.
In addition they know that if they roll a truly crappy character, they can just ensure that the character dies quickly. Because of that, someone using a stat array is going to have lower overall ability scores.
Why do I say this? Because way back when, that's what happened every time. Either the player would look at the DM and be open about it "You know I'm just going to commit suicide, right?" or the character would be "recklessly brave". Yeah, they might lose out on a tiny bit of XP and treasure but compared to an entire campaign of suck it was the better option.
If you want to give someone with point buy an on par character, give them 31 points and let them buy up to a 16.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
The above is 100% true, and it's also why I stopped messing around with rolled stats when I was 12.
Anyone who grew up with them, grew up cheating with them. Maybe it was the guy who 'rolled up a character at home last night' and brought it to the session. Maybe people would pretend their bad roll was them just 'playing with the dice', and not settle on a real roll until they had a good one. Or, of course, if the DM was really strict about it, you'd get the suicide stuff. While I've very rarely seen rolled games where there really was some goal of randomness, the vast, vast majority of people who say they want to roll absolutely have no interest in randomness and just want higher stats.
And frankly I got tired of the BS. If my players want to play a high stat game to test some weird multiclass options, they can just ask me for a bigger point buy, content with the knowledge that I'll probably bump all the monsters up too. Fake motives bother me way more than people wanting a high powered game.
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zard in 1e elves and half orcs couldn't even be raised normally it was pretty epic to get one of those guys back. Level loss from undead could be fixed though not super easy still it was part of the game never had anyone quit over it, everyone knew it going in. Same with level loss from death. But that's not even the most exciting what about only having a Druid around, that means reincarnation...you come back without con or level loss but as what who knows and even if humoid your physical stats needed to be re-rolled. I also don't recall anyone simply rolling a level 8 character if their last one died. They rolled a level 1 and knew they better think their way through a few encounters but soon enough they were close in level and they felt good because they earned it, they also earned the respect of the group they just joined. The one exception were if some had leveled npcs, hechmen or squires or whatnot. For truly long running game most of us had a few of these.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Two things with random stats. One of the most fun games I played we rolled 3d6 in ordered and played what we rolled. We had a blast more then a few of us had fallen into the here or lower can only be a xxxxxx, I had an assassin because of my 4 cha, but our agreed on rule if you hit one of those you would auto qualify for the class even if your other stats did not. There was also the stat chart in UA....9 dice for a fighter str take the best 3 and so forth. We called it the super chart because it had a tendency to create super characters. We used it for a few epic games, would be fun for a change of pace too.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ok, let me get your take on this example:
I want to randomly generate a character's class.
1-fighter
2-cleric
3-wizard
4-rogue
I roll a 1. But I don't want the character to be a fighter, so I roll again. Am I randomly generating this character's class?
It's true that every time I roll 1d4, the result is a random number. But am I still randomly generating the character's class by ignoring rolls I don't like?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rottle wrote:
What does the page or two of argument about "what is random" have to do with ... anything? Other than to prove that ya'll like arguing?
Whatever method you use if you roll for stats it starts with a crude random number generator that generates integers between 1 and 6. These generators are commonly known as "dice".
What you do with the numbers is a decision point that has nothing to the initial randomness dictated by the dice. However, you decision is made based on random numbers.
On a side note, if you keep rolling 4d6 and reroll any result less than 8 you are really skewing the curve towards a level of power gaming that is not at all necessary for 5E.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I can still hear clearly the gasps, whines and outrage being spewed by a few of my fellow players at the table when they discovered that you couldn't start with higher than a base 15 with point buy. How would they survive without at least an 18 in their primary stat. Ugh. People need to quit bring their previous edition assumptions and baggage to 5e. It would be so much smoother a transition if people would just play it as intended and as designed. Instead of as 3.875 or 4.5. Heck I bet it would be less tramatic, if people *had* to carry in certain preconceptions and baggage, if they took it as 2.75.
LordCorwin wrote:
I don't think you have a very strong grasp of what I'm saying. Or maybe you are talking past me and so shouldn't be quoting me directly if you don't intend to address what I actually said vs. what you want me to have said. I spoke to nothing regarding you ongoing rant or this inane debate about what random means.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in getting involved in the "what's random?" debate. But I will ask some more questions to the pro-statroll people out there.
Basically the question comes down to this: Is it essential to have losers in the lottery?
I hear a lot of talk about mostly people that roll simply think the array is too weak and want better characters. So what if we just up the array. Lets say I was DM and allowed an array of 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 12. Would you still want to roll or would you take that higher array? Would this method be superior to rolling in terms of fun factor or would it ruin your enjoyment of the game knowing that everyone has high stats? Is deliberately creating that imbalance in party abilities actually one of the desired goals when you decide to use rolled stats?
I ask this because it seems that it'd be pretty trivial to just give everyone powerful characters if the goal is simply to be more powerful.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Ok, what about this... I've done this myself:
You are going to randomly determine a magic item that a player is going to get, so you use a table.
You roll and consult the table, and it's a potion. Not another potion. So you roll again. Now you consult the table and it's an item they can't use. Nope, I want them to be able to use it. Let's roll again. Again you consult the table, and now it's a cloak. Hmm... but they already have a cloak. Let's roll again. Hey, now it's a ring... hmm.. that's really powerful... maybe something else... so you roll again...
At what point does this go from "random" to "not random"? I would say it stopped being random the moment you ignored the first roll because you were given a range of values, and produced a number from that range, but decided not to accept it. You have altered the probability of the values within the range, setting the value you ignored to a probability of 0. It's still within the range, just as it is still on the table, you just ignore it.
Some might say it never stops being random as long as you're rolling dice.
So what if you have decided you're going to give the player a wand of magic missiles, and you roll dice until you roll "wand of magic missiles"? Was this random? Or was this decided? Dice were involved, but so is a decision that only one possible value from the range of possible values is valid and all others will be ignored.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Wow. Did this thread go off the rails or what? AmIright, fellas? Yikes.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'm putting together a game with friends, haven't decided on method yet but I'm thinking of using 20d6 and have people assign the dice to their scores as they want, still keeping the maximum of 18. It means 2 stats will have 4 dice assigned instead of 3.
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Easy, fellas. Let's only argue about one definition at a time.
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
As I read it, the two points bookending your post seemed at odds. But that's just my personal opinion based on how it came across to me.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
I think it's safe to say we can agree those aren't 1st level PCs. Nor are they difficult to emulate functional equivelants in an RPG such as 5e using even just its standard array.
So how about a real example of a character concept and not a list of iconic, established, and specific literary characters.'
But before all that maybe you should start by defining 'exceptional ability score'. Because eveything I'm looking at tells me a 15 or 16 to start is that very thing in 5e.
LordCorwin wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Twelve pages in, still not quite sure what the actual topic is supposed to be. So I'm going to take another stab at answering Zard's question, but this time with a twist.
As a player, no, I would not allow a DM to make my character. Maybe I'd allow them to roll the stats, for sure if we were playing original D&D. I'd only allow the DM to make the whole character if it was a Dragonlance-style adventure rail and I had suffered a head injury and agreed to play the DM's novel.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orenthalin,
You aren't getting 3 18s with roll 4d6 drop the lowest except for once in a million or more tries. If I had a player that simply wanted to play Connan I would simply let him assign whatever stats he wanted, also let the other players do so if they wanted build a super hero crew or whatever. It's a game, if the players want to play as epic heroes, well awesome I will give them a world were they are and of course an epic hero is only a hero because he/she faces the most epic of foes. Sure the group will devastate some weaker foes to revel in their awesomeness but for the truly epic stuff their foes will be special and powerful. If I actually had only one player looking for Connan and the rest wanted more or less average adventurers well we'd work out something so the one Connan type can be who he wants and the others can be who they want. I've played in enough games where we rolled the stats to have seen a Connan show up unlooked for among joe averages and we've still managed to have a great deal of fun.
I've been playing d&d since the late 70's I've played most classes more times then I can recall. I like to roll stats now because I often come to a game with no preconceived idea for my character, I let the dice decide for me, I generally roll them placing them in order...for me the same order I have always used...str, int, wis, dex, con, cha, and to decide how they look com.( we don't always use the stat but I roll it just for my own use and imagination). That's why I want to roll dice, plus I have always preferred rolling dice to stat arrays or point buys.
cbwjm wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion, speaking of your definition of character concepts. I asked you for at least one example in post #452 which you interestingly avoided. Please respond. Thank you.
LordCorwin wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rottle wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
So what kind of character concept in 5e would require multiple high stats? Mecha pilot? Kryptonian? Elder vampire?
Orethalion wrote:
You know you could use the stat array of 18, 18, 18, 15, 12, 10.... For all players in your game. It's your game, make it however you need to in order to have fun.
Orethalion wrote:
Why even bring fighter/wizards into the discussion about smart fighters, when you can just be an eldritch knight and nobody will in good faith argue that you're not a fighter.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Rottle wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
How high an intelligence must a fighter start with to qualify as 'smart' in your opinion?
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Let's talk about mistakes.
Orethalion wrote:
I have absolutely zero problem with powergaming. But it does tend to bother me when certain kinds of powergamers try to hide behind flimsy excuses pretending to be something else. Usually because they are trying to lull others or trick them so as to get away with something.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Yeah, this is the reason I find rolling fundamentally pointless. A meaningfully random rolling method makes winners and losers at character creation Other 'friendly' algorithms are just reducing the variance to such a minimal range that it's kind of a joke (if still not literally inaccurate) to call them random, and effectively are guaranteeing all winners.
So literally the only motives are unfairness or uniformly high stats. And in the latter case, you may as well just use an array.
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
danyc wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Rottle wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
After giving it some thought I've decided to modify my (still 100% hypothetical) rule for suiciding low score characters by not applying it to first time "offenders." If the player just wasn't actually prepared for the possibility of low scores, they can make their new character using point-buy. But if they still decide to roll even after realising they won't play low scores, the gloves come off.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
danyc wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I think my disconnect with the anti-rolling group is I don't value stats. I take what I get and enjoy the road. I recall many years ago playing magic during revised edition we would buy one starter deck, two boosters and spend the night playing and having a ball. It wasn't even or maybe balanced but it was a hoot to see what we could make out of random cards. Someone always had a sera angle or vampire that would be a serious threat because flyers back then were very rare, but it was fun and challenging. I take a character with low stats as someone possessing that certain something that makes then better then their stats can define, think Deric Jeter, his stats were good even great 3k hits is a ticket puncher for the hall, but to Yankees fans he was so much more then his stats portrayed. Anyway I don't value stats, I only only barely value balance between the classes, so I guess it makes sense I am fine with rolling dice.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rottle wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Some of what I'm hearing seems very self-contradictory. On one hand, the message is "Stats don't matter" but then there's also mention of denying people rerolls on their stats, even one person saying they'd ban people from their games entirely just for killing one of thier characters so they can switch. If stats don't matter, then why all the grave importance on enforcing them. They don't matter... so why not just grant the player a reroll like he wants? If stats truly don't matter to you or the rest of your group, then giving an unhappy player a stat reroll should be an easy "yes."
LordCorwin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
That's called a fumble on the dodge check. Also classic transference. You're flailing now. You've made too many bombastic claims and outlandish statements and so have painted yourself into a ridiculous corner you cannot talk your way out of. That's on you. 
I haven't had to block someone in a very long time. Oh, well.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
danyc wrote:
For 5th Ed I have gone with: start with a 7 in all six ability scores, then roll 2d8, discard the lower roll, six times, assign as desired (so every score has a range of 8 - 15, before racial modifiers), if you are still not pleased with your rolls, you may take the Standard Array.
Orethalion wrote:
This is why a median action is good, like, look at the NPCs (Boba, Luke, Obi, Vader, etc) in SWSE, a good average range of basically 10 - 15 (in that ballpark). In 5th Ed, this works great, one guy has 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 15, and the other guy has 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15, no big deal.
danyc wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
We actually tired a version where everyone rolls and they pick the one thye like best as the stat array. Tends towards higher scores though as in effect its 4d6 drop the lowest repeated for or 5 times pick the best. It avoids the somone gets rogered effect though. We stopped using it though due to crazy high ability scores and nothing under 12 was common.
For once, Zardnaar says something that I actually think is a brilliant idea.
If you're bored by basic arrays (or just admit you want higher stats), want the players to have some fun rolling, but also don't enjoy randomly screwing over people at your table, the proposal above is really the best of all worlds.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
danyc wrote:
I roll in order.......I really love that method.
But I don't buy rolling as messing up whoever rolls the lowest stats. It's just luck. Is it messing over the fighter when he rolls a to hit and misses but has a higher chance to hit then the ranger who rolls a hit? She everyone just get an 11 so no one is treated unfairly by their rolls? Or maybe each player has to choose from an array of attack numbers fun yo thing will be the end of a longish fight when they have only low numbers left. Fight started like gangbusters but ended in a wiff fest as no one could hit anymore, that could be some serious comedy.
I could probably get behind something along the lines of what Zard said.--having the table participate in generating the array. And while it would be possible to come up with an array to suit just about any spread, arbitrarily assigning values to cover that range would be an awkward process precluding the excitement of rolling in the first place. As would inventing a new point-buy formula. Both would address the numerical limitations I personally have with either option, but still lack the enjoyment of rolling the character. And the attachment it helps me form with the character in question.
I agree. Zard's method sounds like a good compromise between that want randomness and those that want fairness. The fact that you can choose any of the arrays means that no-one would end up unwillingly shortchanged.
Rottle wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I think it's less about competing and more about feeling like one is contributing equally to the team effort.
danyc wrote:
danyc wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I like the Three Dragon Ante ability generation rules as a compromise between the fairness of point-buy and the desire for a random character. Sometimes I just have no idea what to play so I either roll in order or use the cards if the campaign is point-buy only.
For those familiar with Three Dragon readings, here's my suggested setup for 5th edition point-buy:
Nature: Nine tokens
Spirit: Three tokens
Nurture: Three tokens
Abilities: Two tokens each