The rules themselves suggest NOT rolling for stats, but using the point-buy system wich helps all players start off equally well stats wise.
It hinders this random junk characters from occuring, but also hinders awesome characters with high stats across the board. Basicly taking randomness out of the equation in favor of fairness and balance.
IMHO the cashier either had no clue what he was talking about, or spoke out of personal preference (maybe he plays a lucky high rolled character himself)
Either way I suggest you all redo the characters with the 22 point-buy system.
All the written material assumes all players have done so, and since youre all just starting out it will probably cause less headaches in the future.
Once you all start feeling that you can take on advanced gaming, you might want to look at stat rolling again though if you find the randomness fun.
what's your score spread like? if it's as low as you make it seem, i would have your GM double check your numbers & compare with monster defenses. if it looks likes you need to roll very high to hit, he might want to think about letting a reroll or allowing point buy.
If youre looking at a 18 STR and a 15 CON I suppose it could be worse for a fighter.
But if those are your final stats....Eh yeah.
It's a very likely possibility, that you will be left behind.
Because your scores are a little low and theirs are higher than normal.
Results like this can be really fun to roleplay out, or it can just feel unfair and horrible.
Wich is why I recommend point-buy until you all feel more safe in handling off-the-wall stuff, so its fun for everyone involved.
I assume you are not quite peachy with the unfairness, or else you wouldnt be here expressing doubt.
I would hope the DM atleast lets the low rollers use point-buy instead of their bad rolls, and maybe let the high rollers keep their scores so they don't feel cheated out of their nice stats now that they have them.
It would let you catch up a bit anyway, and the party gets to try both systems to see wich one you guys like best.
> methods
There is a reason why rolling is not the standard method. The cashier's feelings notwithstanding, stick to the standard rules when you're learning the game.
Our DM is a newbie as well, we're all trying this out for the first time
I guessed as much.
minor variations will likely go unoticed, but when some PC's go on the weak side and some on the mightier side, the gap is widened.
This might mean that some encounters will be too easy since the mighty party members will steamroll the monsters.
This usually prompts the DM to up the challenge, wich means the PC's on the low scale starts to suffer instead by missing much more attacks, getting knocked out or even killed.
Now don't take me as some sort of expert, because I'm quite new myself due to lack of game time across our group.
You're probably fine to go as is. It probably wont upset the game that much.
Just that the low rollers will feel like bumbling sidekicks, and the high rollers will feel more like heroes.
This may (or may not) be fun and awesome.
STR will be your primary score, you use it to hit the monsters and deal damage.
CON is important for your hipoints, and also extra damage if you use axes or hammers.
WIS should not be neglected due to its impact on your class ability and marks, but its not a major focus. It's nice for a higher will defense aswell.
DEX is only really important in special builds that uses swords and I think also spears.
But its nice for initiative bonus and such.
INT and CHA is bugger all unless youre looking to multiclass.
Youre better off browsing the defender forum or the optimizing forum than asking me though.
But if you're willing to keep them, go with it. Maybe when you all have learned more, you can adjust things a bit if needed.
1) Everyone does not need to have the same array or point buy equivalent. If someone has 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 while another player has 16, 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, it's fine. 4E is more generous than 3E in terms of ability score boosts. MAD is less of a problem in 4E than previous editions both for class abilities and saving throws. The difference in point buy equivalence is meaningless.
2) You do not have to be slave to the dice. Of course bad luck will come into play. While Mord rolls 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 and Godric rolls 16, 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, poor Dani rolls 13, 13, 11, 10, 8, 8. The DM should get over himself and let Dani reroll. Mord should not care because he already has a good set. Same with Godric. Dani rerolls and gets 17, 16, 16, 13, 12, 8. She's happy now. Uh oh, now it looks like Godric has become the runt of the party. His array hasn't change, so it's still good. He still has the same fine character as previously. He hadn't lost anything. However, the DM might see it as wanting compared to Mord and Dani. What to do, rage against rolling? No! With Godric probably liking the idea, fiat Godric's 12 to a 10 and make one of the 16's an 18 so that Godric now has 18, 16, 15, 11, 10, 10. Hmm, that's infringing on Mord's good fortune. Perhaps the 11 to 10 for a 16 to 17 might be better to be fair to Mord, so Godric would have 17, 16, 15, 12, 10, 10. That's better.
Using 3d6, 10-11 is average. If you add up all six scores and the result is 63 or greater, then you have an above average character. A good average character then would have 13,12,11,10,9,8.
Nowadays though the average player expects to start out with godlike stats and if there aren't at least two 16+ they call the character unplayable. : )
A more typical method is to roll 4d6 (keeping the highest three dice) six times and arranging those six scores as desired. It doesn't generate god-like characters but they do tend to be above average.
Another method, that I've come to prefer, is the standard array method where every character starts with: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 arranged as desired. That puts the character well above average with no low scores.
As to throwing out a character or rerolling a low score, there is no hard and fast rule about that. It's entirely up to the DM.
The colleague who went out to get our supplies was told by the cashier at the game store that rolling for scores as opposed to the standard methods provided was the better way, so we tried that.
Well the cashier was wrong.
In every objective respect, rolling ability scores is a bad idea. The only reason to do so would be subjective "personal preference" coupled with a willingness to overlook the myriad problems.
If the cashier actually went so far as to bring this up (since you're all new players, I highly doubt your friend asked), he's probably what gamers call a "grognard" - a curmudgeonly old player who's too set in his ways to fairly evaluate playstyles different than those he grew up on.
Sadly, a few of us ended up with a lot of ridiculously low scores across the board ... My score spread is 10, 10, 11, 13, 5, 16. It's not bad, but in comparison, some of the other members of my group have 3+ 17's, and other such numbers.
Yup, that's the usual result when you roll - some results much higher and some results much lower. That's the main reason why rolling is no longer the default method.
so my question is, is there anything in the rules that permits a re-roll for stats in this case, even if it's only one more chance?
Out of curiosity, how did you roll your ability scores? The official rolling method (which averages faily close to the point-buy numbers, albeit with plenty of variance up and down) is Method 3 on page 18 of the Player's Handbook. It states to roll four six-sided dice, ignore the lowest of the four results, and add up the remaining three. This will produce a number from 3 to 18. Perform this six times to creates six such numbers, then arrange as desired amongst the six ability scores.
When using this method, it is assumed that you should have a total of modifiers between +4 and +8 (before racial bonuses). Your total of modifiers is only +1, so you should definitely be permitted to reroll. The people in your group with three or more 17+ numbers probably have modifier totals greater than +8 and therefore should probably reroll as well (i.e. they're too powerful and should be made weaker).
(And, as an aside, rolling three or more numbers that high for a single character is extremely unlikely using any normal rolling method. Unless someone witnessed those rolls, it's quite possible the players in question cheated.)
So I'm just starting D&D ... Our DM is a newbie as well, we're all trying this out for the first time, so they're a little clueless as well.
That's all the more reason not to rock the boat with something as basic as character ability scores.
I would suggest talking to the group and the DM, explaining that random, rolled scores are not intended in 4th Edition, and asking everyone to remake the PCs using either the standard array or the point-buy method - Methods 1 and 2 on page 17 of the Player's Handbook. You can also choose precalculated arrays from the sample list on page 18.
This way everyone will be more or less equal in ability, and the whole party will be properly in line with the math of the game (e.g. the power levels of monsters, and such). This should make the game run smoother and reduce work for the DM - all good things for beginning players.
If you search the boards for dice rolled characters you will notice that their stats all have something in common...they are all above average, and generally speaking this is why people like rolling for stats. It offers an easy way to power game.
There's nothing wrong with "power gaming".
One problem with Point Buy is 'How many points?'. What is enough points is subjective, not objective. What the book suggests is too low for some people and too high for others.
4E has the advantage here over 3E since all classes generally rely on two ability scores for class abilities and saving throws are based on the better of two scores. It's easier to make subjective "decent" characters with book recommendation. In 3E, paladins and monks suffer big time in "low point buy" games and non-spellcasters to a lesser extent. Spellcasters never lacked for relative subjective "decent" scores for any point buy amount.
I have no particular problem with point buy, per se, but I do have a personal mantra in regards to character creation regardless of method: Do not demand that my character must have an 8, and I won't demand that my character must have an 18. That's where my issue with point buy comes into play. It usually forces that 8, especially to get an 18. I have no problem rolling a character with an 8 and no 18, given a subjective "decent" array anyway such as 16, 16, 15, 14, 10, 8, and I won't "whine" for a reroll. However, if I'm lucky enough to roll 18, 17, 15, 14, 11, 11, I want to play that character without pompously being derided as a power gamer.
However, if I'm lucky enough to roll 18, 17, 15, 14, 11, 11, I want to play that character without pompously being derided as a power gamer.
Can we deride you humbly?
However, if I'm lucky enough to roll 18, 17, 15, 14, 11, 11, I want to play that character without pompously being derided as a power gamer.
Can we deride you humbly?
Touche
I love array's too! My last table not so much and I decided against it with my current table. Arrays just make for a much more interesting game if you ask me. 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12 is what I'd love to give out. In fact it is what I wanted to give out last time I tried, which comes out to 40 build points but my players still said no and took 32.
@bone_naga
I love array's too! My last table not so much and I decided against it with my current table. Arrays just make for a much more interesting game if you ask me. 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12 is what I'd love to give out. In fact it is what I wanted to give out last time I tried, which comes out to 40 build points but my players still said no and took 32.
Typical players, lol. I usually give an option to roll, but I recommend it for experienced players only and do not allow rerolls (after all, if you were really dead set on a certain concept, you should have used point buy or an array). Every time someone decides to do it, they end up with lower scores than they would have gotten from point buy. Go figure.
So I'm just starting D&D, and we're using 4th edition. The colleague who went out to get our supplies was told by the cashier at the game store that rolling for scores as opposed to the standard methods provided was the better way, so we tried that. Sadly, a few of us ended up with a lot of ridiculously low scores across the board. In addition, our DM doesn't really want to do the rolls another way now that we've done them. Now, we are still getting set up, so we haven't started a campaign yet, so my question is, is there anything in the rules that permits a re-roll for stats in this case, even if it's only one more chance? I don't want to pipe up about this unless I'm sure, as not to cause a scene.
Yes, in the PHB p18, under the heading,"Method 3: Rolling Scores" 2nd to last paragragh, if the total of your ability modifiers is lower than +4 or higher than +8 before racial ability adjustments, the DM can rule that your character is too weak or too powerful...and adjust your scores to fit better...
Of course if the group at large isn't happy with how things turned out, a wise DM acting in the interest of a fun game, would probably just allow the group to start again using another method of stat generation. My 2 cents.
Our DM is a newbie as well, [snip] :P
your DM will spend less time prepping for games if all the characters move to a point-buy system as well and avoid having wild variations in ability MOD levels between them. I didn't see anyone else mention this, though this goes along with what was said about the published material being written with the assumption that characters are using point-buy or array and possibly (though, i'm not sure how often this is or is not the case) not placing an 18 into an ability that will be boosted to 20 by racial modifiers. in fact, some starting characters may not even have an 18 among their spread of scores and will still be an effective character.
so, let your DM know that this isn't just about the PCs and certainly not just about your less endowed PC; this is also about making his task in the game go more smoothly and quickly as he prepares for sessions.
That reason is tradition, because rolling stats was the way "it used to be done back in the old days." Also, many players get attached to rolling, because they've gotten to play "uber" characters that they remember fondly. However 4th edition is much more sensitive to math, and unbalanced characters make it much harder on the DM.
Remake the characters using Point Buy. The Array method is equal to Point Buy if you decided to allocate points that way.
EDIT: Also, don't make a Wizard that has only direct damage spells. That's not their strength.
Frankly, the cashier is either a real-life troll or an idiot, to suggest rolling for scores to a group of newcomers. Rolling for stats is an injury to game balance in a number of ways both overt and subtle, and this edition of the game was designed with point-buy in mind.
It seems that your group and the DM is new to the game. I can understand that he may not want to redo anything as it may be perceived to be unfair to some players, particularly those who happen to roll very high ability scores. I would say that mistakes were made during the character creation step and if nothing is done, it would make the situation way more unfair in the long run. Having all of the players redo their ability scores with point buy may upset the few players who had higher scores, but would make the situation better in the long run for all players and the DM. If your DM has any concerns, please feel free to invite him to these forum to discuss them or you can post them here on his behalf and we'll attempt to help him and your group deal with those issues.
The colleague who went out to get our supplies was told by the cashier at the game store that rolling for scores as opposed to the standard methods provided was the better way, so we tried that.
Well the cashier was wrong.
Or the player - who is a newbie - misunderstood what the cashier was saying about rolling for ability scores. And in any case the DM - albeit also a newbie - is not with responsibility for taking the second-hand word of a cashier as preferable to the primary suggested method in the rules and then declining to accomodate players when issues then arise and objections are raised.
In every objective respect, rolling ability scores is a bad idea. The only reason to do so would be subjective "personal preference" coupled with a willingness to overlook the myriad problems.
While I would recommend to new players (and especially a group composed of all-new participants, DM as well as player) that they use only point-buy, I have no hesitation in explaining that rolling is an option with distinct BENEFITS over point-buy and explaining why I personally find it far preferable and superior in spite of its drawbacks. You would be simply wrong in suggesting that rolling ability scores is unquestionably a bad idea as well as in attributing it with "myriad problems." There are, of course, differences with rolling compared to non-random methods which must be understood and accepted but they are not inherently problematic, nor are they numerous.
Sadly, a few of us ended up with a lot of ridiculously low scores across the board ... My score spread is 10, 10, 11, 13, 5, 16. It's not bad, but in comparison, some of the other members of my group have 3+ 17's, and other such numbers.
Yup, that's the usual result when you roll - some results much higher and some results much lower. That's the main reason why rolling is no longer the default method.
This, for example. It is at best inaccurate to say that this is a "usual" result. It is, however, a possibility that needs to be understood and accepted by the DM, and certainly it would be preferred by players that the DM set some accompanying standards to deal with severely differing ability score sets between PC's if that is going to be an issue for players.
Remember that rolling for ability scores IS still presented as an option instead of the defaul point-buy so it can hardly be suggested that it is such an offensively horrible method to use or it would NOT continue to be included in the rules.
I would suggest talking to the group and the DM, explaining that random, rolled scores are not intended in 4th Edition, and asking everyone to remake the PCs using either the standard array or the point-buy method - Methods 1 and 2 on page 17 of the Player's Handbook. You can also choose precalculated arrays from the sample list on page 18.
I, on the other hand, would suggest talking to the DM and group and explaining that rolled scores are simply not recommendable for those who do not yet fully understand the challenges and implications that approach carries. Given that, with the complaints from the players as undeniable evidence, the DM cannot have any justifiable objection that I can see to allowing the players to rebuild their characters using a NON-random method. Rolling ability scores provides a DIFFERENT gaming experience, not a CRIPPLED one.
This way everyone will be more or less equal in ability, and the whole party will be properly in line with the math of the game (e.g. the power levels of monsters, and such). This should make the game run smoother and reduce work for the DM - all good things for beginning players.
Two characters with EXACTLY the same characters down to every last detail are NOT equal in ability because the players are not equal in how they will play those characters or develop them from that point. nor how the dice will dictate their further successes and failures. And the math of the game is not there to ensure equality of outcome. The outcomes throughout the game cannot be predicted for the very reason and to the same degree that the comparative values of rolled ability scores cannot be predicted - the unpredicatabilities of rolling dice. Inequality of ability scores - even significant inequality - does not by default break the game. Failing to understand and appreciate how additional variables such as rolled ability scores MIGHT affect the math will, however, be more likely to result in problems.
There are lots of good character options, but certain combinations can be a bit problematic.
I don't mean to scare you or anything. You probably won't see anything really at low levels. But just be aware that it can be possible.
In my current 3.5 game I enforced points buy for the first time. There was some initial complaints. Rolling ability scores is something of a tradition so it was a hard habit to shake, but the end result was worth it I think. At least the players can look at each others character sheets and not feel cheated by a less-than-group-average roll that sticks with them forever.
-DF
Point-buy and the stat array are more balanced, for sure, but rolling stats triggers a nice feeling, I guess the same feeling folks usually get by gambling. I don't gamble, so I couldn't really tell you.
Not always, I find that rolling low stats generally do not trigger nice feelings.
Point-buy and the stat array are more balanced, for sure, but rolling stats triggers a nice feeling, I guess the same feeling folks usually get by gambling. I don't gamble, so I couldn't really tell you.
Not always, I find that rolling low stats generally do not trigger nice feelings.
True, but sometimes it can be interesting, like when I made a character with 6 Dex because he was a veteran and semi-crippled. I probably wouldn't of thought to do that but for the roll of chance. That was an NPC I rolled as a DM, though.
Point-buy and the stat array are more balanced, for sure, but rolling stats triggers a nice feeling, I guess the same feeling folks usually get by gambling. I don't gamble, so I couldn't really tell you.
Not always, I find that rolling low stats generally do not trigger nice feelings.
At one point I could see this usefullness of rerolling low stats when rolling stats was the normal way of gettting stats. I think they should have also make a player reroll stats if to many of them get to high
with 4th changing towards point buy being the normal of getting stats, i think getting rid of the you rolled to low rule would be good
Hey if you wanted to risk rolling over a pointbuy it should be as good as a chance to get high stats as there to get low stats.
But I'll stick to standard array.
I forget who I was talking to but years ago someone told me that they were using 1d8+10 for each ability. It had the fun of rolling, guaranteed no "low rolls", and typically made characters that he and his players were happy with. If you are going to roll abilities, it seems as valid as any other system I have heard of.
But I'll stick to standard array.
Sounds pretty reasonable. I'll roll a few characters later to see if that ends up with a reasonable array.
But yes, I agree, if lower than +4 total mods, the PC is a dud.
I usually like the roll 4d6 drop the lowest and you get what fate hands you.
If the player rolls (in view of the DM) 3 18s, congrats, lady luck liked you. I won't punish a person for being lucky.
But I firmly believe only a fool trusts to luck. I've told players, pick the point purchase method, and KNOW you will have the few great stats you will need. Make sure your PC will actually work.
But yes, I agree, if lower than +4 total mods, the PC is a dud.
If the player rolls (in view of the DM) 3 18s, congrats, lady luck liked you. I won't punish a person for being lucky.
But now you're being inconsistent. If you won't "punish" a lucky person (by making him reroll), then why would you "reward" an unlucky person (by wiping the slate clean and allowing, maybe even requiring, him to reroll)? The lucky player doesn't deserve to keep his good results any more than the unlucky player deserves to be stuck with his bad ones.
The whole idea with rolling is that you take what you get, the bad with the good. If you aren't happy taking whatever you get, then you shouldn't be rolling in the first place - it clearly isn't a good method for you.
That's not to say a group can't "trim" the possible results to exclude the most extreme and unbalancing outliers. Indeed, they probably should do this - extreme outliers are almost always a bad thing. However, if you're going to set a minimum cutoff point (results below which may be rerolled) then to maintain fairness, balance, and the very spirit of rolling at all, you must also have a comparable maximum cutoff point (results above which must be rerolled).
e.g. If you permit any result below, say, the 20th percentile (the worst 20% of possible results) to be rerolled, then you must require any result above the 80th percentile (the best 20% of possible results) to be rerolled.
Since, as I said, the very spirit of rolling is to "take what you get", I would never consider a rolling method to be legitimate unless it either:
1. Refuses any and all rerolls. Everybody sticks with their very first result, good or bad.
2. Rerolls particularly bad and good results in equal measure; only accepting results from an approved "middle range".
That's not to say a group can't "trim" the possible results to exclude the most extreme and unbalancing outliers. Indeed, they probably should do this - extreme outliers are almost always a bad thing. However, if you're going to set a minimum cutoff point (results below which may be rerolled) then to maintain fairness, balance, and the very spirit of rolling at all, you must also have a comparable maximum cutoff point (results above which must be rerolled).
That doesn't follow at all. Why does the distribution have to be symmetric?
You claim that we have to do this, but don't have any actual reason why.
Any kind of result trimming is opposed to "take what you get".
Now, a legitimate reason would be something like "we don't want one player to completely outshine the rest". But all your arguments have to be from the only first principle "we want a fun game".
That doesn't follow at all. Why does the distribution have to be symmetric?
No offense; but the burden of proof is clearly on you, not me. It's quite intuitive that it ought to be symmetric - that reducing risk should reduce potential reward. That the rewards should remain while the risks are lessened is very counterintuitive.
The much better question would be, "Why doesn't it have to be symmetric?"
You claim that we have to do this, but don't have any actual reason why.
I didn't spell them out; but the reasons are all implicit in what I said above. If you'd like them spelled out, here you go:
1. Rolling itself is supposed to be symmetric. It's a form of gambling - a way of potentially getting results above average in exchange for accepting the possibility of results comparably below average. Removing the possibility of low results while keeping the possibility of high results completely undermines this.
2. Rerolling only low results skews the expected results of rolling upward significantly. For example, "Roll 4d6; but reroll if your result is poor" produces results significantly higher, on average, than "Roll 4d6, keep what you get."
3. On that note, rerolling only low results creates imbalance with the math of the game. Rerolling only low results increases the expected results, increases PC power, and damages the game balance. You'll note that the only official rolling method indicates that you should reroll arrays with total modifiers less than +4 or more than +8. Why? Because to compensate for the increased power that comes from rerolling poor results, you must also force rerolls when the results are comparably high - thereby bringing the expected outcomes back into balance.
4. Rerolling only low results is flat-out inconsistent and irrational. Any case you might make for why a reroll of low scores should be permitted is an equally strong case for why rerolls of high scores should be required:
Low scores:
- "John was just unlucky. He shouldn't be punished the whole campaign for a moment of bad luck."
- "It's not John's fault he rolled poorly; he doesn't deserve those low numbers."
- "There's no reason why John's character should be particularly worse than anyone else's."
- "It will upset the party balance if John's character is much weaker than the rest."
High scores:
- "John was just lucky. He shouldn't be rewarded the whole campaign for a moment of good luck."
- "It's not John's fault he rolled well; he doesn't deserve those high numbers."
- "There's no reason why John's character should be particularly better than anyone else's."
- "It will upset the party balance if John's character is much stronger than the rest."
If you accept the first list as good reasons to reroll low scores but don't accept the second list as equally good reasons to reroll high scores, then you're being inconsistent and irrational. Those who reroll only low numbers are contradicting themselves. To remain consistent, you need to reroll both extremes equally or reroll nothing at all.
5. Rerolling only low results is, honestly, really lame. It's basically the same as saying, "I want to gamble; but I don't want any of the risk. I want the chance at good results; but I don't want the risk of equally poor results. I want all of the benefits with none of the detriments, all of the positives with none of the negatives. I want to have my cake and eat it too."
Any kind of result trimming is opposed to "take what you get".
By the strictest reading, you could make that case. That's why I have no problem with those who refuse rerolls altogether.
However, if you "trim" both ends of the curve equally, then it balances itself out. The range of possible results is now equivalent to if you hadn't trimmed at all - i.e. every potential high result is balanced by an equivalent low result, and vice versa. The curve is "narrower" (i.e. it doesn't stretch as far in either direction); but the shape and balance is preserved.
But yes, I agree, if lower than +4 total mods, the PC is a dud.
If the player rolls (in view of the DM) 3 18s, congrats, lady luck liked you. I won't punish a person for being lucky.
But now you're being inconsistent. If you won't "punish" a lucky person (by making him reroll), then why would you "reward" an unlucky person (by wiping the slate clean and allowing, maybe even requiring, him to reroll)? The lucky player doesn't deserve to keep his good results any more than the unlucky player deserves to be stuck with his bad ones.
The whole idea with rolling is that you take what you get, the bad with the good. If you aren't happy taking whatever you get, then you shouldn't be rolling in the first place - it clearly isn't a good method for you.
That's not to say a group can't "trim" the possible results to exclude the most extreme and unbalancing outliers. Indeed, they probably should do this - extreme outliers are almost always a bad thing. However, if you're going to set a minimum cutoff point (results below which may be rerolled) then to maintain fairness, balance, and the very spirit of rolling at all, you must also have a comparable maximum cutoff point (results above which must be rerolled).
e.g. If you permit any result below, say, the 20th percentile (the worst 20% of possible results) to be rerolled, then you must require any result above the 80th percentile (the best 20% of possible results) to be rerolled.
Since, as I said, the very spirit of rolling is to "take what you get", I would never consider a rolling method to be legitimate unless it either:
1. Refuses any and all rerolls. Everybody sticks with their very first result, good or bad.
2. Rerolls particularly bad and good results in equal measure; only accepting results from an approved "middle range".
The unlucky person rerolling takes nothing away from the lucky person. The lucky person will have his awesome array regardless of whatever the unlucky person does. What's important is for everyone to have a "playable" character, "playable" being subjective. The unlucky person doesn't need to have an equivalent array as the lucky person, just "playable". It may require the unlucky player reroll. It may only mean what was rolled just needs to be adjusted. Perhaps just one score gets a fiat to something better. Perhaps scores get fine tuned by Ye Olde "2 for 1" of Yesteryear or the more generous "1 for 1". If the unlucky person does reroll and luckiest of luckies his reroll is now better than what the lucky person had, the lucky person is still no worse off than he was. He still has his awesome array. He was not cheated.
A question for Point Buy is how many points? 22? 28? 35? 40? Point Buy can give "skewed" scores as well. However 4E game mechanics does make for easier Point Buy use than previous editions for four reasons: 1) All races get a free ability score boost, so if you really, really want that 18, you can save points by only taking a 16 and use the free boost for it if you don't want to spend for the 18 to make it a 20. 2) Saving throws use the better modifier of two ability scores, so deciding between them which gets the 14 and which the 10 is almost irrelevant. 3) All classes have two prime scores for their powers. You can decide just to concentrate on one score and pump it up and up and up or manage both for a little variety which is rather easy to do anyway. 4) Ability score boosts gained as you level are more generous than in 3E. If you're really bothered by that 8 in your dump score anyway, it can go away with little effort. If you're managing two scores for your class and really, really want both at 18, you can have that happen soon enough.
Point Buy was bad for 3E because some classes were quite MAD. The inherent zero-sum nature of Point Buy hurt those classes unless the Point Buy was high, at least 32 but better at 36+. The more common 28 or 25 Point Buys, for those who were most vocal in support of Point Buy, had the MAD classes suck. Rolling allowed for a greater chance of "decent" MAD classes, "decent" being subjective.
The unlucky person rerolling takes nothing away from the lucky person. ... He still has his awesome array. He was not cheated.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I never complained that rerolling low scores somehow "cheats" or "takes away from" those who rolled well, nor did I say anything of the sort.
I don't go by the gambling argument. Rolling for scores allows for interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy.
Well if you, personally, prefer rolling not for the "gambling" aspect (i.e. risking low numbers for the chance at high numbers) but rather for the "unpredictable" aspect, then I would assume you agree with my position.
If a group is rolling simply as a way of producing random and unpredictable results, then if they're willing to reroll the particularly poor results (i.e. they want random; but they don't want bad), then I would assume they would also wish to reroll the particularly good (i.e. they're interested in randomness, not arbitrarily greater power). I would assume that such a group would wish, ideally, to keep the power levels of all characters more or less equal and more or less in line with the game math (i.e. no extreme outliers one way or the other); they simply wish that power to be distributed in unpredictable ways (e.g. a wizard with unconventionally low dexterity and unconventionally high strength).
True, but sometimes it can be interesting, like when I made a character with 6 Dex because he was a veteran and semi-crippled. I probably wouldn't of thought to do that but for the roll of chance. That was an NPC I rolled as a DM, though.
Perhaps you are the type of player who would enjoy playing a semi-crippled character. I certainly do not feel that way. I've done so in the past. It was interesting for a short time until the novelty wears off. Then it just gets annoying.
You (colloquially speaking) don't get all upset and call me munchkin if I have 18, 16, 16, 13, 12, 12, and I won't pout and complain if I have 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.
But yes, I agree, if lower than +4 total mods, the PC is a dud.
If the player rolls (in view of the DM) 3 18s, congrats, lady luck liked you. I won't punish a person for being lucky.
But now you're being inconsistent. If you won't "punish" a lucky person (by making him reroll), then why would you "reward" an unlucky person (by wiping the slate clean and allowing, maybe even requiring, him to reroll)? The lucky player doesn't deserve to keep his good results any more than the unlucky player deserves to be stuck with his bad ones.
The whole idea with rolling is that you take what you get, the bad with the good. If you aren't happy taking whatever you get, then you shouldn't be rolling in the first place - it clearly isn't a good method for you.
That's not to say a group can't "trim" the possible results to exclude the most extreme and unbalancing outliers. Indeed, they probably should do this - extreme outliers are almost always a bad thing. However, if you're going to set a minimum cutoff point (results below which may be rerolled) then to maintain fairness, balance, and the very spirit of rolling at all, you must also have a comparable maximum cutoff point (results above which must be rerolled).
e.g. If you permit any result below, say, the 20th percentile (the worst 20% of possible results) to be rerolled, then you must require any result above the 80th percentile (the best 20% of possible results) to be rerolled.
Since, as I said, the very spirit of rolling is to "take what you get", I would never consider a rolling method to be legitimate unless it either:
1. Refuses any and all rerolls. Everybody sticks with their very first result, good or bad.
2. Rerolls particularly bad and good results in equal measure; only accepting results from an approved "middle range".
Hmm never thought of it like that
There reeeeeally is only one real concern for players with bad stat luck though.
If they rolled bad, the PC has a death sentence mark on their forehead in all likelihood, as it is a VERY rare player that will just grin and bear it.
I have this problem with my buddies Paladium game. The dice generation is very specific to the race and class being rolled up. If you roll lame, half the time you don't find out till it's all finished. It's like, crap, this guy requires a decent number here just to be useful, and it's a lame number meaning he's sure going to be less than heroic in the one area he really can't afford t be lame in.
I find point purchase means only stupid choices make bad PCs because it's not like you were forced to put a low stat anywhere. It means the DM doesn't need to be there to verify rolls. it's all basic math. You have only so many points.
I don't go by the gambling argument. Rolling for scores allows for interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy. for a 3E character I played a fighter/cleric with a 7 Charisma, 16 Strength, 16 Wisdom. He was a blast to play. He means well, but tend to talk LOUDLY and also say the wrong thing at the wrong time. My favorite line was when the party was going to help out orcs against a rival tribe and he told them "We're here to rescue you!" It also allows for those lucky times when you get something "awesome" such as three 18s in Strength (18/99), Dex, and Con I once enjoyed for a 2E fighter.
Your roleplaying a PC and role-playing doesn't require stats. You could have played the same fighter with all 18 in every stat
Point Buy was bad for 3E because some classes were quite MAD. The inherent zero-sum nature of Point Buy hurt those classes unless the Point Buy was high, at least 32 but better at 36+. The more common 28 or 25 Point Buys, for those who were most vocal in support of Point Buy, had the MAD classes suck. Rolling allowed for a greater chance of "decent" MAD classes, "decent" being subjective.
Wouldn't this be a problem 3ed and not the method of how you got the stats
My ability score generation philosophy is thus: Don't demand an 8, and I won't demand an 18.
An 18 and an 8 isn't a very good comparison. The benefit of an 18 is massive. The detriment of an 8 is very minor, almost negligible. Especially in 4th Edition, which is excellent at rewarding high numbers in important class abilities and terrible at punishing low numbers in other non-class abilities.
A better comparison would be something like an 18 and a 4.
You (colloquially speaking) don't get all upset and call me munchkin if I have 18, 16, 16, 13, 12, 12, and I won't pout and complain if I have 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Nor should you. 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 is a very solid and respectable array. In fact, it's almost identical to the standard array.
If you would "pout and complain" about 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8, then maybe you really are a munchkin.
Besides. It's not like you can't control the outcomes...
1d20 averages 10.5, scores between 1 and 20 (yes I had a DM try this. ONCE.)
3d6 averages 10.5, scores between 3 and 18.
4d6 drop lowest averages about 12, scores between 3 and 18.
3d6 re-roll 1s, average 12, scores between 6 and 18.
4d6 re-roll 1s drop lowest averages 13.2 (I think), scores between 6 and 18.
2d6+6 averages 13, scores between 8 and 18.
2d6+6 re-roll 1s averages 14, scores between 10 and 18.
There is already an upper bound of 18 so you shouldn't have to worry about them being too powerful. Changing the lower bound gives you less likelihood of low powered or 'unplayable' characters. Just like raising the point buy from 22 to 30 gives you better spreads. We've come a long way from the days of "Roll 3d6, and that's your Str. Again for Dex. Again for Con...".
Of course I only play 3.5, which requires 'active' balancing. If you use 4.0 cruise control, YMMV.
(And for all you crazies who want to lower the upper bound, I'm sure there are ways to do that, too. I've never seen a sheet and went "OMG, 3 18s? That's unplayable!")
But I always thought the point of rolling ability scores was to have a bit of variety. Almost every point buy character seems to have the same stats. (to me anyway)
What does it matter as longs as players like playing a character with those stats? If two players want to play with similar stats, rolling just serves to ensure that one of those players do not get to play what they want.
But I always thought the point of rolling ability scores was to have a bit of variety. Almost every point buy character seems to have the same stats. (to me anyway)
What does it matter as longs as players like playing a character with those stats? If two players want to play with similar stats, rolling just serves to ensure that one of those players do not get to play what they want.
That is a very good point. I agree that it is more balanced. More 'fair'.
Rolling for your scores just seems like part of the fun to me. To each his own I guess.
I don't go by the gambling argument. Rolling for scores allows for interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy. for a 3E character I played a fighter/cleric with a 7 Charisma, 16 Strength, 16 Wisdom. He was a blast to play. He means well, but tend to talk LOUDLY and also say the wrong thing at the wrong time. My favorite line was when the party was going to help out orcs against a rival tribe and he told them "We're here to rescue you!" It also allows for those lucky times when you get something "awesome" such as three 18s in Strength (18/99), Dex, and Con I once enjoyed for a 2E fighter.
Your roleplaying a PC and role-playing doesn't require stats. You could have played the same fighter with all 18 in every stat
Point Buy was bad for 3E because some classes were quite MAD. The inherent zero-sum nature of Point Buy hurt those classes unless the Point Buy was high, at least 32 but better at 36+. The more common 28 or 25 Point Buys, for those who were most vocal in support of Point Buy, had the MAD classes suck. Rolling allowed for a greater chance of "decent" MAD classes, "decent" being subjective.
Wouldn't this be a problem 3ed and not the method of how you got the stats
The point about the fighter was that I got really, really luck on rolling for ability scores. It was fun to play a character that had such a an awesome array, one I never had before or since. It's a once in a blue moon thing you can't get with Point Buy unless you use a high point value.
Of course 3E has an issue with MAD classes. That is why Point Buy is bad for it unless you use a high point count. There isn't anything "wrong" with using 32 points or 36 points or more. However, the most vocal proponents of Point Buy almost always used 28 or 25 points, and that is what made the MAD classes suffer even more with monks getting the worst of it. If you use 36 points or get a lucky roll 3E monks do well. That doesn't take away their issue of being MAD, but now at least for that particular game a monk character won't suck so bad in terms of game mechanics.
My ability score generation philosophy is thus: Don't demand an 8, and I won't demand an 18.
An 18 and an 8 isn't a very good comparison. The benefit of an 18 is massive. The detriment of an 8 is very minor, almost negligible. Especially in 4th Edition, which is excellent at rewarding high numbers in important class abilities and terrible at punishing low numbers in other non-class abilities.
A better comparison would be something like an 18 and a 4.You (colloquially speaking) don't get all upset and call me munchkin if I have 18, 16, 16, 13, 12, 12, and I won't pout and complain if I have 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Nor should you. 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 is a very solid and respectable array. In fact, it's almost identical to the standard array.
If you would "pout and complain" about 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8, then maybe you really are a munchkin.
Like I said, in 4E Point Buy works. However, before 4E was even just an April Fool's joke, time and time again people complained when 1st level characters had an 18, and this includes the days of yore of TSR and 2E.
In 3E, if they they're talking about their hatred of rolling for scores, they always stereotype about the whiners who would demand a reroll for having an 8 or not an 18. They assume the player would nto be happy with 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 by default. If it's asking about help in building a character and someone provides stats with no score below 10, someone will cry "munchkin" before the 10th response. If it's someone gungo ho on Point Buy, it's always 28 or 25 points which means if a character were to have an 18 at 1st level, he's crippled everywhere else (except perhaps a wizard/sorcerer/druid). If it's about theoretical happentance of attacks or 20th level builds or strategies, it's always assumed at 1st level the character had an 8 somewhere and no 18.
That's why I say - don't demand I have an 8 or else you think I'm a munchkin, and I won't proprogate your stereotype of demanding an 18 just because I like to roll for ability scores.
But I always thought the point of rolling ability scores was to have a bit of variety. Almost every point buy character seems to have the same stats. (to me anyway)
What does it matter as longs as players like playing a character with those stats? If two players want to play with similar stats, rolling just serves to ensure that one of those players do not get to play what they want.
It doesn't ensure anything. Some players like to roll first then make their character based on that array. It's matter of personal preference at the moment in question - build an array towards a given character or build a character towards a given array. Point Buy does make the former preference easier depending upon the character wanted. For the latter preference it necessitates rolling.
It doesn't ensure anything. Some players like to roll first then make their character based on that array. It's matter of personal preference at the moment in question - build an array towards a given character or build a character towards a given array. Point Buy does make the former preference easier depending upon the character wanted. For the latter preference it necessitates rolling.
If it's a matter of a player wanting to build a character towards a given array, then that player can simply randomly choose an array on p. 18 of the PHB. The players who want to build an array towards a character can use point buy. This way, both types of players will be happy. If you make everyone roll, some players will not be happy.
1. Rolling itself is supposed to be symmetric. It's a form of gambling - a way of potentially getting results above average in exchange for accepting the possibility of results comparably below average. Removing the possibility of low results while keeping the possibility of high results completely undermines this.
That's a fine assumption if you want to make it but it's not universally true. Rolling need not be symmetric. POINT BUY ISN'T SYMMETRIC.
Your assumption here for rolling is that if you use it then there MUST be as many low results as high results. That's silly because the fact that the results ARE random all but prevents that from being the case except across a VERY broad sample of results. The issues then with rolling is not that low results exist at all - it is that despite the use of random rolls to achieve the results, a set of low results are much less desireable, even unacceptable if the set is low enough. Higher-end results are not necessarily as undesirable, but they become moreso as the gap between a character with stats skewed very high and the rest of the PC party that character is in is increased.
Point-buy simply says that there will be no gap at all between characters and allows the DM to set how ASYMMETRICAL he wants PC stats to be compared to a theoretical "average" result.
2. Rerolling only low results skews the expected results of rolling upward significantly. For example, "Roll 4d6; but reroll if your result is poor" produces results significantly higher, on average, than "Roll 4d6, keep what you get."
Yes. This is why 3E, 2E, and 1E all have included rerolling thresholds.
3. On that note, rerolling only low results creates imbalance with the math of the game. Rerolling only low results increases the expected results, increases PC power, and damages the game balance.
No it doesn't because simply using a higher point buy total accomplishes the same effect.
You'll note that the only official rolling method indicates that you should reroll arrays with total modifiers less than +4 or more than +8. Why? Because to compensate for the increased power that comes from rerolling poor results, you must also force rerolls when the results are comparably high - thereby bringing the expected outcomes back into balance.
Yes. 4E makes a formal rule to ensure that even when rolling stats there is not too great an imbalance between the lowest set of stats and the highest because that CAN (not WILL) be a problem. Older editions have not dealt with that issue. So what then?
You're not demonstrating how any of this breaks the math of the game, you're only making it clearer that for you an identical sum total for stats is psychologically important.
4. Rerolling only low results is flat-out inconsistent and irrational. Any case you might make for why a reroll of low scores should be permitted is an equally strong case for why rerolls of high scores should be required:
Low scores:
- "John was just unlucky. He shouldn't be punished the whole campaign for a moment of bad luck."
- "It's not John's fault he rolled poorly; he doesn't deserve those low numbers."
- "There's no reason why John's character should be particularly worse than anyone else's."
- "It will upset the party balance if John's character is much weaker than the rest."
High scores:
- "John was just lucky. He shouldn't be rewarded the whole campaign for a moment of good luck."
- "It's not John's fault he rolled well; he doesn't deserve those high numbers."
- "There's no reason why John's character should be particularly better than anyone else's."
- "It will upset the party balance if John's character is much stronger than the rest."
How about:
-"John rolled poorly. He looks forward to the challenge of nonetheless creating an interesting and fun character. Mike rolled very well. He is congratulated by everyone and they look forward to seeing what the character will do. Mike himself is now challeged to not be a jerk and use his characters high stats to deliberately overshadow other PC's and hog the spotlight."
- "Robert rolls high as well - even higher than Mike - but the DM asserts that having two very exceptional PC's in the party makes it not so much a challenge for John as a fun-suck. Robert and John agree and one (or both!) of them gets to re-roll their character stats.
5. Rerolling only low results is, honestly, really lame. It's basically the same as saying, "I want to gamble; but I don't want any of the risk. I want the chance at good results; but I don't want the risk of equally poor results. I want all of the benefits with none of the detriments, all of the positives with none of the negatives. I want to have my cake and eat it too."
Not true. Rolling for stats is saying that the group wants to see a variety in the scores between characters, some skewing better than others, and accepts that this can present challenges. Rerolling only the low results says simply that the group understands that despite some results being worse than others with rolling, it is assumed that the PC's ARE supposed to be heroes and thus GENERALLY better than just the average joe. Therefore the lower end of the random results is discounted.
Any kind of result trimming is opposed to "take what you get".
So what if it is? It's practical and sensible. Just because YOU don't like the idea of playing in a game where it's done (for whatever reasons) doesn't make it broken.
I've played in the past PCs that had glaring practicality issues, and still managed to survive because the DM was enjoying the 'colour' as much as the player.
If you have a barbarian that is as strong as an ox, and as dumb as an ox, and you enjoy playing up he's not too bright, but not to the point as has been mentioned in other threads that he's just a hazard to the group out of all control, it can be fun. It can be fun to portray a PCs lacking in some area without making it an over done pain to the group.
But I always thought the point of rolling ability scores was to have a bit of variety. Almost every point buy character seems to have the same stats. (to me anyway)
What does it matter as longs as players like playing a character with those stats? If two players want to play with similar stats, rolling just serves to ensure that one of those players do not get to play what they want.
That is a very good point. I agree that it is more balanced. More 'fair'.
Rolling for your scores just seems like part of the fun to me. To each his own I guess.
I wish more rollers would just admit to this. It is fun, but isn't the most balance way of getting stats
I wish more rollers would just admit to this. It is fun, but isn't the most balance way of getting stats
This. I once played a 3.5 game where we rolled 3d6 in order for stats, randomly determined class, race, gender and magic items, and each got to draw a bunch of cards from the deck of many things at the beginning and it was fantastic, but generally not the kind of thing I'd want to do for an ongoing campaign.
But I always thought the point of rolling ability scores was to have a bit of variety. Almost every point buy character seems to have the same stats. (to me anyway)
What does it matter as longs as players like playing a character with those stats? If two players want to play with similar stats, rolling just serves to ensure that one of those players do not get to play what they want.
That is a very good point. I agree that it is more balanced. More 'fair'.
Rolling for your scores just seems like part of the fun to me. To each his own I guess.
I wish more rollers would just admit to this. It is fun, but isn't the most balance way of getting stats
"Balance" has nothing to do with it.
True, but sometimes it can be interesting, like when I made a character with 6 Dex because he was a veteran and semi-crippled. I probably wouldn't of thought to do that but for the roll of chance. That was an NPC I rolled as a DM, though.
Perhaps you are the type of player who would enjoy playing a semi-crippled character. I certainly do not feel that way. I've done so in the past. It was interesting for a short time until the novelty wears off. Then it just gets annoying.
Oh, I would of hated it if I was a PC like that. As I said, though, it was an NPC. Besides, he had quite high stats, otherwise.
I forget who I was talking to but years ago someone told me that they were using 1d8+10 for each ability. It had the fun of rolling, guaranteed no "low rolls", and typically made characters that he and his players were happy with. If you are going to roll abilities, it seems as valid as any other system I have heard of.
But I'll stick to standard array.
Sounds pretty reasonable. I'll roll a few characters later to see if that ends up with a reasonable array.
Figured I'd share my results.
I rolled 5 "4d6, drop the lowest roll" and "1d8+10", then took the averages, and while that isn't enough for a big sample size, it did begin to make it clear that either I just rolled poorly with the d6s and really well with the d8s, or that the inability to roll 8s or so on stats meant I was beginning to end up with significantly higher stats. Then again, like I said, small sample size, as getting two 17s on one of them kind of through the whole thing off.
Good idea, but it wont ever happen because dice rolled stats tend not to be motivated by a desire for randomness(imo). Its all about the poooower!
So you would demand an 8 from me.
Give me that 18!
All the arguments for starting characters with super-human ability scores (which most of the posts in this thread promote) tend to rationalize that by saying that adventurers are by nature above average and need to be buffed up in order to do heroic things. In essence, that's just putting some poor sap in a strongman suit and calling him a hero. Imo, that makes the suit a hero. It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
4th edition is much more sensitive to slight differences in math. It's hard to see on paper how it could be different but it's apparent after a little while of play with skewed stats.
Feats aren't boosting attacks as much, damage isn't as high, armor isn't as magical, items don't buff your stats, and most spells aren't going to work "regardless" of damage. More is dependent on the PC him or herself.
It's really geared to a certain view of high fantasy by default that is slightly different from 3.5.
If it's an across-the-board, players have lower stats than default, the DM could "make it work" by having the party fight lower level enemies perhaps. But adjusting monsters can be really quite hard when the party has wildly varying raw capabilities.
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values. ... It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
Sure, but you're mixing the player and the character roles. A charismatic player can make as compelling a speech with a CHA 8 character as with CHA 18. A wily player can forumlate some cunning plans with a low WIS character. A brilliant player can solve complicated puzzles with an INT 8 character.
All that heroic cunning and strategy is supposed to be packaged in the character and brought to life through the player.
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values.
All the arguments for starting characters with super-human ability scores (which most of the posts in this thread promote) tend to rationalize that by saying that adventurers are by nature above average and need to be buffed up in order to do heroic things. In essence, that's just putting some poor sap in a strongman suit and calling him a hero. Imo, that makes the suit a hero. It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
This is satire... right?
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values.
All the arguments for starting characters with super-human ability scores (which most of the posts in this thread promote) tend to rationalize that by saying that adventurers are by nature above average and need to be buffed up in order to do heroic things. In essence, that's just putting some poor sap in a strongman suit and calling him a hero. Imo, that makes the suit a hero. It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
This is satire... right?
Actually, while I have a game far and above the array listed I agree with the thought. My player love the gamble of rolling, even if it is using a system that takes a lot of the gamble out of it. We have had a player roll low on all 3 arrays and use the results without grumbling. Afterall what is a +2/-2 in the grand scheme of things. Once you advance your character past level 4-6 it becomes a drop in the bucket. The only time it really hinders a character concept is when it makes choice impossible due to a pre-requisite, and as a GM I will work with that.
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values. ... It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
Sure, but you're mixing the player and the character roles. A charismatic player can make as compelling a speech with a CHA 8 character as with CHA 18. A wily player can forumlate some cunning plans with a low WIS character. A brilliant player can solve complicated puzzles with an INT 8 character.
All that heroic cunning and strategy is supposed to be packaged in the character and brought to life through the player.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that a character with an 8 CHA can make a compelling speech. A character with an 8 INT can solve a complex riddle.
The array I posted above is an average distribution of 3d6. For decades, people have rolled 3d6 and gotten by just fine. Over time endless new methods have been used to bump up those scores until now we have a new generation of players with a mindset that unless they have all 18s, the character is useless.
An average person can make a compelling argument, solve a difficult riddle, devise a cunning plan. A below average person can do these things. I would make the argument that most D&D players are not above average (I don't mean that as an insult, just a statistical probability) and that whatever argument or plan they come up with is directly in line with what an average character would devise.
If the character does have a high INT, and the player running that character doesn't happen to be a super-genious, that is an excellent time to let the abilities dictate a chance for success and then roll to determine the outcome.
I expect that I will stay with the Stadard Array method, as listed in the PHB, but my point was that there is nothing wrong with average. This thread is full of comments implying that a character with even a single ability score that is only average is a useless character. I'm so tired of running into that mindset. Average is perfectly acceptable.
As someone here pointed out, if you inflate all of the character's abilities, the DM will simply inflate the monsters or otherwise raise the encounter difficulty to match. You can inflate both sides or just leave them all alone. Average characters against average monsters in average encounters plays very well. Characters already have the advantage in the form of better equipment and supplies. They really don't need inflated abilities to survive.
The array I posted above is an average distribution of 3d6. For decades, people have rolled 3d6 and gotten by just fine. Over time endless new methods have been used to bump up those scores until now we have a new generation of players with a mindset that unless they have all 18s, the character is useless.
The stats for the "average person" is undefined. It's not 10, it's undefined! A group of goblin minions, kobold minions, human minions, could totally eviscerate a crowd of average people. The minions only have stats in relation to competent adventurers.
If someone wants to be a jack-of-all-trades and take an "average" stat array, they will be absolutely underpowered as a 4e character and the DM will have to compensate for their relative weakness. If they are the only one in the party with such a stat array, likely they will be missing 20-30% more frequently and being hit about the same added rate (unless in heavy armor), this will be noticeable.
And most importantly,
Show
THE MATHS OF DIFFERENT EDITIONS ARE IN NO WAY COMPARABLE!!!!
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values. ... It's cunning, daring, and strategy that make a true hero in my eyes. A good player can be heroic regardless of stats.
Sure, but you're mixing the player and the character roles. A charismatic player can make as compelling a speech with a CHA 8 character as with CHA 18. A wily player can forumlate some cunning plans with a low WIS character. A brilliant player can solve complicated puzzles with an INT 8 character.
All that heroic cunning and strategy is supposed to be packaged in the character and brought to life through the player.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that a character with an 8 CHA can make a compelling speech. A character with an 8 INT can solve a complex riddle.
The array I posted above is an average distribution of 3d6. For decades, people have rolled 3d6 and gotten by just fine. Over time endless new methods have been used to bump up those scores until now we have a new generation of players with a mindset that unless they have all 18s, the character is useless.
An average person can make a compelling argument, solve a difficult riddle, devise a cunning plan. A below average person can do these things. I would make the argument that most D&D players are not above average (I don't mean that as an insult, just a statistical probability) and that whatever argument or plan they come up with is directly in line with what an average character would devise.
If the character does have a high INT, and the player running that character doesn't happen to be a super-genious, that is an excellent time to let the abilities dictate a chance for success and then roll to determine the outcome.
I expect that I will stay with the Stadard Array method, as listed in the PHB, but my point was that there is nothing wrong with average. This thread is full of comments implying that a character with even a single ability score that is only average is a useless character. I'm so tired of running into that mindset. Average is perfectly acceptable.
As someone here pointed out, if you inflate all of the character's abilities, the DM will simply inflate the monsters or otherwise raise the encounter difficulty to match. You can inflate both sides or just leave them all alone. Average characters against average monsters in average encounters plays very well. Characters already have the advantage in the form of better equipment and supplies. They really don't need inflated abilities to survive.
Hmm, I see your point. How about we go into this further? Forget about having ability scores at all! No more of this whining about having an 8 or 18. No more convoluted dice rolling methods or arbitrary point buys. Put the books the away. Everyone just sit around and tell stories and get Mom or Dad to settle the "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" arguments. Only people who are interested in POWERRR care about numbers anyway.
What my post actually did say, is that I was tired of the mindset, that is prevelant throughout these forums, that "a character with even a single ability score that is only average is a useless character".
Unless, you are very new to these forums, I am sure you are aware that many people advocate a modified standard array or point buy system that will generate abilities far in excess of what can be created using the standard methods as described in the 4e phb. These modified methods create super human characters, that were NOT playtested, and are further from the norm than the "average" array that I (half-sarcastically) proposed.
Although I don't have any problem with the standard ability score generation methods, I do stand by my statement that an "average" array would work equally well. Some players wouldn't like it but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work just fine.
Also, I have never come across a serious suggestion to create characters above the standard point buy or arrays, but I'm sure it happens. I know that CharOp, a major subforum here, only considers standard arrays or point buy for character creation.
I don't know how you can possibly have a character without at least one "average stat" using point buy, and possibly one stat at 8.
I also wanted to separate that stats only belong to PCs and Monsters. Your common average person has no stats at all. So it doesn't follow if an "average" player solves a riddle that their character with a stat that would be considered "average" under old editions, that the character could be considered capable of solving the riddle. I've seen riddles in LFR that involve knowing the spell components of 2e and 3e spells and using them in the right order. It's entirely possible that the "dumb fighter" could be played by someone who memorized the 2e/3e system and could rattle off all those spell components. Doesn't mean that the fighter would be in character to start spouting off all this obscure arcana knowledge.
Stat Generation from early on (in my opinion) is something that been heavily house-ruled across the board ( I think editions 2 through 3.5 just suggested various alternate mthods of rolling). The guy at the bar serving PC Dwarves their beer should be the guy with the 10, 10, 8, 7, 5 scores. Rolling for stat scores should accomplish 2 things in my opinion: 1) should be fair to everyone across the board and 2) not tip the scales too weak or overpowered. If you can accomplish this, then there's no problem rolling for stats. Here's some house rules we've tried in the past rolling for stats:
1) Re-roll 1s
2) Roll 4d6 and keep the highest 3
3) Roll 10 times and keep the highest 6 results
4) Roll 1d8 and add 10 to the roll
I'm in with 2 seperate groups who have had stat-rolling rules set before I joined and both use the combo of #1 and #2. Roll 4d6 re-rolling 1s, keep highest 3 dice. Seems like you canend up with some sick rolls, but my last 3 Characters are:
Dwarf Fighter: 16, 16, 15, 13, 13, 10
Dwarf Defender: 17, 15, 15, 13, 12, 12
Tiefling Bard: 17, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10
My OPINION: Your DM may be against you re-rolling cuz if you can re-reoll for better stats, then EVERYONE should be allowed to re-roll for better stats and you have players with good rolls that won't want to re-roll. But NO PC should have to field a character with a 5 score.
Sit down with your DM, try a couple alternate methods of rolling, just write down what the results are just to see what scores you would come up with, and try to go from there. Even if just re-rolling 1's...
Some people are more for players just being an average joe. Our campaigns have been a little more "you're a little better than everyone else, you'll be able to accomplish better things, this is why your story is going to stand out".
I did read your whole post. I mainly was against the idea of players gaining the advantage of being very charismatic or very intelligent without having the stats to bear it out. Then if you get a DM that calls you on it, your lack of stats to back you up could lead to a failure for the group.
You are assuming that any great idea that a player has must have a high ability score to back it. That is what I disagree with. Players are not "very charismatic" or "very intelligent". If they were, they would be leading countries and working in think tanks. Players are simply people, average people, with average ideas. Their characters then only require average ability scores to back up those ideas.
Player knowledge of game mechanics can of course skew things but that will always be a problem and should be dealt with simply by a DM call stating that the character would not know a certain piece of information.
Also, I have never come across a serious suggestion to create characters above the standard point buy or arrays, but I'm sure it happens. I know that CharOp, a major subforum here, only considers standard arrays or point buy for character creation.
I don't know how you can possibly have a character without at least one "average stat" using point buy, and possibly one stat at 8.
I just spent less than five minutes searching various forums and discovered the following methods that people have stated that they use :
Rolling:
5d6, reroll 1's, select highest three dice. (mean around 15)
1d8 + 10 (mean 14.5, all six stats above 10.5, linear, 12.5% chance of 18 for each stat)
Fixed Array:
18, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12 (mean 14.67, all six stats above 10.5)
18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 (mean 15, all six stats above 10.5)
Point buy:
35+ points (someone a few weeks ago was suggesting 50+)
The term "average" seems to be considered by many to be an insult. New players tend to think of average (3d6 mean of 10.5) to be so inept in that ability as to barely be functional.
Standard rolling (4d6 discard lowest, mean 12.2446), standard array (mean 12.66), and point buy (22 points) all generate slightly better than average (2+ points each) ability scores. These other methods that people are suggesting are that much again. Some even more than that.
home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_gen...
I wrote that years ago and mention it a lot in these sorts of threads.
In OD&D your ability scores genuinely meant next to nothing so there was no cause to work out new methods of generating scores.
1E and 2E, by the rules at least, had minimum stat requirements to qualify for classes (some quite statistically extreme) and minimum stats for race as well. Generally you had to have a 15 or better for an ability score to provide a bonus with 7 or less generally a penalty. On a curve of 3d6 your chance to get a bonus is only about 10%. So 6 rolls, each with a 10% shot at a bonus (not necessarily even a good bonus or a bonus where you WANT it) came to be seen for what it was - a fairly CRAPPY chance at a decent, interesting character. But it was stated clearly that those 15's were intended to be viewed as EXCEPTIONAL scores. The rules were clearly laboring under some misconceptions thinking that players would be making a lot of characters (lots of character turnover due to death) and few of them would last significant amounts of time, and that although PC's would be clearly superior to the Average Joe, few of them were EVER supposed to be getting much in the way of bonuses. But the reality was that players came to want and even EXPECT those bonuses for "exceptional"scores.
It was those assumptions of 1E and 2E rules not resonating with the way in which the game was actually being played that really drove the invention of new methods of character generation. Many (even most?) of the methods given in the books were actually poor solutions to the problems of having to have such high scores to even start getting bonuses. The haphazard results of a small handful of dice just didn't do well to provide both the randomness and the spread of results that was wanted - but you needed those 15's and up for the score to MEAN something useful mechanically in the game.
The change of the VALUE of a given score in 3E (where a 12 or above now provided a bonus and 9 or below a penalty) now changed the dynamics of any generation method HUGELY. You didn't need those 15+'s any more - just above average. But 3E also drastically changed the general dynamics of gameplay. It was their stated objective to have players find much of the fun of the game in character creation and planning. That too changed the meaning/value of a characters stats: although scores of a much lower threshold were given greater mechanical value there was a marked INCREASE in the emphasis on players wanting and needing higher and higher scores because the game was now DESIGNED to reward players who sought out those mechanical benefits by whatever means possible.
I'd point out again that in 3E the DEFAULT method for generating ability scores was still rolling dice (4d6). Point-buy was an OPTION - one of many - presented in the DMG for the _DM_ to consider. I don't think point-buy was ever intended or expected to become as dominant a method as it is. I believe its popularity came about as a response from DM's attempting to reign in undesirable levels of player control of the game - the chants about it creating a level playing field among players being just a convenient excuse. (Although I also have to admit that I think an increased amount of "cheating" and inconsderate players were also factors and too many DM's found it necessary to institute that level playing field for those reasons.)
I don't see that things have changed with the 4E mechanics. In 4E I would again emphasize that point-buy is not presented as THE DEFAULT method. It is just the first listed of three - and the last of the three options is STILL rolling dice (warts and all). The game math DOES NOT begain to fail if random methods of stat generation are used. OTHER problems can certainly arise, but the game itself is not yet designed to RELY on all PC's being equal in stat values.
For your edification should you choose to be interested:
home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_gen...
Hey thanks! That was me. I'm the one who says "It is not a crime for PC's to be good at something,"
Do you recall reading it here or rec.games.frp.dnd where I use a different moniker than "navar"?
For really wild numbers, try one of these variations
6 + 1d12 x 6
8 + 1d10 x 6
10 + 1d8 x 6
If that's too random, multiple dice will generate a more centered average roll. Re-rolling certain dice will make a more powerful average character, because a 3d6 average wont work in 4th edition.
3d6 x 6
3/4d6* x 6
3/4d6(brutal 1)** x 6
6 + 2d6 x 6
6 + 3d4 x 6
3/5d6 x 6
No matter what method you use, your DM must decide upon the range of acceptable scores. +4 to +8 is a good guideline, but it's up to the DM whether it will be a more realistic campaign or a more fantastic campaign.
The point buy is recommended for new or lazy players, because a large variation would require a revier of each encounter to make sure it is tweaked to fit an abnormally strong or weak*** group.
Personally, I use point buy myself. But after noting all the different ways to roll I kind of want to try
1/2d8 + 1/2d6 + 1/2d4 x 6
*choose 3 dice from a roll of four
**choose 3 dice from a roll of four after rerolling any 1s
***compared to those using 22 point buy
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values.
It would seem that such low stats would really limit the ability of a player to pick certain feats. A standard point buy would not have such issues.
For your edification should you choose to be interested:
home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_gen...
Hey thanks! That was me. I'm the one who says "It is not a crime for PC's to be good at something,"
Do you recall reading it here or rec.games.frp.dnd where I use a different moniker than "navar"?
Well if you said it back when I was still reading RGFD then that's where I probably picked it up.
I'm very fond of the standard array method but after following this thread, I'm very strongly considering going with a new array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for all characters. That's a nice solid average character based around the median values.
It would seem that such low stats would really limit the ability of a player to pick certain feats. A standard point buy would not have such issues.
Neither would rolling.
Sorry I'm just now seeing this thread and only read a few pages, but wanted to post my 2 cents to the OP:
Stat Generation from early on (in my opinion) is something that been heavily house-ruled across the board ( I think editions 2 through 3.5 just suggested various alternate mthods of rolling). The guy at the bar serving PC Dwarves their beer should be the guy with the 10, 10, 8, 7, 5 scores. Rolling for stat scores should accomplish 2 things in my opinion: 1) should be fair to everyone across the board and 2) not tip the scales too weak or overpowered. If you can accomplish this, then there's no problem rolling for stats. Here's some house rules we've tried in the past rolling for stats:
1) Re-roll 1s
2) Roll 4d6 and keep the highest 3
3) Roll 10 times and keep the highest 6 results
4) Roll 1d8 and add 10 to the roll
I'm in with 2 seperate groups who have had stat-rolling rules set before I joined and both use the combo of #1 and #2. Roll 4d6 re-rolling 1s, keep highest 3 dice. Seems like you canend up with some sick rolls, but my last 3 Characters are:
Dwarf Fighter: 16, 16, 15, 13, 13, 10
Dwarf Defender: 17, 15, 15, 13, 12, 12
Tiefling Bard: 17, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10
My OPINION: Your DM may be against you re-rolling cuz if you can re-reoll for better stats, then EVERYONE should be allowed to re-roll for better stats and you have players with good rolls that won't want to re-roll. But NO PC should have to field a character with a 5 score.
Sit down with your DM, try a couple alternate methods of rolling, just write down what the results are just to see what scores you would come up with, and try to go from there. Even if just re-rolling 1's...
Some people are more for players just being an average joe. Our campaigns have been a little more "you're a little better than everyone else, you'll be able to accomplish better things, this is why your story is going to stand out".
Why allow rerolls of low stat rolls. You took the gamble to roll for stats. You have to take the bad with the good.
I don't see many games going "well you roll to high you have to reroll"
Sorry I'm just now seeing this thread and only read a few pages, but wanted to post my 2 cents to the OP:
Stat Generation from early on (in my opinion) is something that been heavily house-ruled across the board ( I think editions 2 through 3.5 just suggested various alternate mthods of rolling). The guy at the bar serving PC Dwarves their beer should be the guy with the 10, 10, 8, 7, 5 scores. Rolling for stat scores should accomplish 2 things in my opinion: 1) should be fair to everyone across the board and 2) not tip the scales too weak or overpowered. If you can accomplish this, then there's no problem rolling for stats. Here's some house rules we've tried in the past rolling for stats:
1) Re-roll 1s
2) Roll 4d6 and keep the highest 3
3) Roll 10 times and keep the highest 6 results
4) Roll 1d8 and add 10 to the roll
I'm in with 2 seperate groups who have had stat-rolling rules set before I joined and both use the combo of #1 and #2. Roll 4d6 re-rolling 1s, keep highest 3 dice. Seems like you canend up with some sick rolls, but my last 3 Characters are:
Dwarf Fighter: 16, 16, 15, 13, 13, 10
Dwarf Defender: 17, 15, 15, 13, 12, 12
Tiefling Bard: 17, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10
My OPINION: Your DM may be against you re-rolling cuz if you can re-reoll for better stats, then EVERYONE should be allowed to re-roll for better stats and you have players with good rolls that won't want to re-roll. But NO PC should have to field a character with a 5 score.
Sit down with your DM, try a couple alternate methods of rolling, just write down what the results are just to see what scores you would come up with, and try to go from there. Even if just re-rolling 1's...
Some people are more for players just being an average joe. Our campaigns have been a little more "you're a little better than everyone else, you'll be able to accomplish better things, this is why your story is going to stand out".
Why allow rerolls of low stat rolls. You took the gamble to roll for stats. You have to take the bad with the good.
I don't see many games going "well you roll to high you have to reroll"
Absolutely. I give my players every opertunity to take 36 point buy, but they love the gamble of rolling. Granted the method we have used recently minimizes the chance of low stats, but it has happend and the player played the character with just as much passion. If my players gave me one bit iof lip about taking low rolls after choosing to roll, I would never give them the choice in the future.
Why allow rerolls of low stat rolls. You took the gamble to roll for stats. You have to take the bad with the good.
I don't see many games going "well you roll to high you have to reroll"
Ability scores matter. You don't reroll if you get 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8. If everyone else rolled better and the worst of that lot is 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, then maybe fiat the 13 to 14 but it's borderline and depends on DM mood. The character would still do fine without adjustment. However, if you roll 14, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, it's a non-functioning array for a PC. There's no point to playing it, so you reroll. The player with 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 still has his nice array. He doesn't lose anything just because the unlucky player rerolls. If suddenly the unlucky player on his reroll gets really, really lucky and rolls 18, 18, 17, 15, 14, 13, because it was a reroll it is fair to lower it to 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 and the other player can fiat a 16 to 18 or maybe the 15.
Fine-tune adjustment is part of rolling. It provides a ballpark of array values of interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy.
This weekend, I gathered a group of five players and had them each create a character with 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 as a fixed array. They created the following group: Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Wizard. Rules were restricted to the three core books (DMG, PHB, MM) and everything was handled 100% by the book; no house rules whatsoever (with the exception of exp and treasure as listed below).
Every encounter was balanced to the party's level (or greater). Monsters were run as aggressively as possible. Characters all leveled after every three encounters. This was done in order to play test the characters at a wider range of levels. No treasure was given after encounters. Instead, the party received the ten treasure parcels described in the rule books for their level after each set of three encounters (just before they leveled). This was done to ensure that at each level the characters would have the appropriate gear assumed by the rules. Characters were allowed to purchase any magic item they wished, restricted by their level and ready cash, and limited to the three core rule books.
We did not have any quests, or skill challenges. We simply moved from encounter to encounter, as quickly as the group could manage it, in order to do as much testing as possible. However, skills were used heavily throughout the game, in order to test the impact of low ability scores on skills as well. The difference in scores effectively put everyone at -1 on all skill checks. It was a noticable difference but not anything I would describe as "non-functional".
We started at level one. In two days, we got through level 10. There was one party wipe in one of the early levels. I think I was a bit over zealous. Other than that, there were a total of three deaths. All deaths were handled by simply replacing the character with same. After all, the goal was to play test the characters so any expedient was helpful.
Characters had absolutely no problems whatsoever that could be attributed to ability scores. This was a group of extremely bright, strategy-oriented players with decades of experience which probably helped a lot.
Higher ability scores certainly would have increased player damage output, shortened combat, and probably have prevented the few deaths that we had. But those deaths could also easily be attributed to the speed at which we were flying through encounters. At a slower pace, everyone might have taken a bit more care and come up with better strategies.
If I can convince them to press on, we will continue next week and see if there is any difference at higher levels. From what we've seen so far though, I suspect everything will continue to go much the same as it did this weekend.
You don't reroll if you get 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you (your meaning is not entirely clear); but are you implying that this is a poor array? One that someone would feel "stuck with"?
If so, you have a very strange perception of the power level of the game. This array is extremely solid and, in fact, a little above-average. Most rolled arrays (using the standard 4d6 method) will be worse than this.
If everyone else rolled better and the worst of that lot is 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, then maybe fiat the 13 to 14 but it's borderline and depends on DM mood.
Again, it's very strange to imagine everyone rolling better than 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8 (a very solid result). Most likely, at least half the other results would be worse than this one.
And the idea that 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 might be the second-worst of the lot is getting a little ridiculous. This is an excellent result - one that's quite powerful, well above-average, and arguably a little too good to permit in a normal game (it would soundly fail the +4 to +8 total modifier test in the Player's Handbook).
However, if you roll 14, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, it's a non-functioning array for a PC.
This array is certainly a little on the weak side (it would also fail the +4 to +8 test); but it's by no means "non-functional". If you're going to be permitting results as good as this to be rerolled, then you definitely need to start forcing the rerolls of many high-end results because you're eliminating almost any risk from the rolling procedure.
A guarantee of at least +4 total modifiers, for example, makes rolling extremely "safe" compared to what it would otherwise be. For the most part, only very respectable results are accepted, thereby eliminating almost all risk. As such, total modifiers in excess of +8 aren't supposed to be accepted either - if you're eliminating almost all the risk, it would be inappropriate to keep the chance at the big rewards.
The player with 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 still has his nice array. He doesn't lose anything just because the unlucky player rerolls.
You said something similar a few pages back, and I didn't see the relevance of it then, either.
I don't think anyone has claimed that rerolls of low results "take away" from good results, nor do I see what that has to do with the topic at hand.
Fine-tune adjustment is part of rolling.
And if you're happy to "adjust" low results upward by simply rerolling them, why would you not be willing, even eager, to adjust high results downward by rerolling them?
If you're willing to "fine-tune" - the point of which is to somewhat normalise the results and try to keep different arrays from being too far apart - then this goal will obviously be better served by rerolling both extremes. In fact, rerolling only the one, low extreme has the opposite effect - it forces the average results upward, away from the norm, and still permits unusually lucky rollers to have results far better than the rest (but now without any balancing risk of being unusually unlucky).
It provides a ballpark of array values of interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy.
And if "interesting arrays" are the reason you roll, then why would you not either:
1. Reroll nothing. After all, can't low arrays be as "interesting" as high arrays? If "interest" and "variety" are your goals, then why discard so many possibilities? Why not keep (almost) everything in play?
2. Reroll both extremes equally. If "interest" and "variety" are you goals, but you still wish to have "playable" scores (thereby choosing to reroll low results), then why not do yourself the extra favour of also keeping the math in-line (by rerolling high results). You'd still have all the "interest" of unexpected outcomes, without any of the problems that come from significantly unbalanced results. Indeed, the only reason I can think of for someone looking for "interesting" results to reroll only low results is if the only results he really finds "interesting" are those which are more powerful - which I'm assuming is not the case with you.
You don't reroll if you get 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you (your meaning is not entirely clear); but are you implying that this is a poor array? One that someone would feel "stuck with"?
No, it's not a poor array. I'm saying that just because there's an 8 and no 18 doesn't mean one should assume it's gets a reroll because it has a "poor" roll. 10 is not "poor", but the 10s aren't giving any "pluses" either. That's not an automatic reroll even though I do advocate rerolling as acceptable as part of the dice rolling character creation method as some Point Buy advocates like to perjoratize because there's no 18.
If so, you have a very strange perception of the power level of the game. This array is extremely solid and, in fact, a little above-average. Most rolled arrays (using the standard 4d6 method) will be worse than this.If everyone else rolled better and the worst of that lot is 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, then maybe fiat the 13 to 14 but it's borderline and depends on DM mood.
Again, it's very strange to imagine everyone rolling better than 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8 (a very solid result). Most likely, at least half the other results would be worse than this one.
And the idea that 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 might be the second-worst of the lot is getting a little ridiculous. This is an excellent result - one that's quite powerful, well above-average, and arguably a little too good to permit in a normal game (it would soundly fail the +4 to +8 total modifier test in the Player's Handbook).
I'm making the point that not everyone has to be equal or equivalent. Just because in dice rolling there will be one player who has the worst array doesn't mean the method is broken. Remember, I did say that 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8 doesn't have to be rerolled. I consider it "worse" than 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11 because the latter roll gives bonuses for 5 attributes while the first one only has bonuses for three attributes and a penalty to one.However, if you roll 14, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, it's a non-functioning array for a PC.
This array is certainly a little on the weak side (it would also fail the +4 to +8 test); but it's by no means "non-functional". If you're going to be permitting results as good as this to be rerolled, then you definitely need to start forcing the rerolls of many high-end results because you're eliminating almost any risk from the rolling procedure.
You can play a character with 10s across the board. It's technically "functional", but game mechanics matter. It "sucks".
A guarantee of at least +4 total modifiers, for example, makes rolling extremely "safe" compared to what it would otherwise be. For the most part, only very respectable results are accepted, thereby eliminating almost all risk. As such, total modifiers in excess of +8 aren't supposed to be accepted either - if you're eliminating almost all the risk, it would be inappropriate to keep the chance at the big rewards.The player with 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 still has his nice array. He doesn't lose anything just because the unlucky player rerolls.
I disagree with this philosophy. No one should be stuck playing "sucky" array does not equate to no one should be able to play a "superduperawesomesticfreakingadelicious" array. If 4 people are playing and one person has +9, one has +7, one has +6, and one has +5, I'm okay with this. What the actual +5 array is might matter. 16, 16, 14, 11, 11, 8 is fine. 14, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10 wouldn't. However, I'm also ok with fiating the +5 to +6 such as making the 8 a 10 or a 16 an 18 as part of fine-tune adjustment. As for the +9 player, hooray for him.
You said something similar a few pages back, and I didn't see the relevance of it then, either.
I don't think anyone has claimed that rerolls of low results "take away" from good results, nor do I see what that has to do with the topic at hand.Fine-tune adjustment is part of rolling.
And if you're happy to "adjust" low results upward by simply rerolling them, why would you not be willing, even eager, to adjust high results downward by rerolling them?
I already said that if on the reroll you get really, really lucky, then that reroll can be adjusted down a bit. However, as matter of personal philosophy, in terms of fine tuning the first and only roll, it is much better to raise the unlucky person so that everyone is equally happy rather than lower the lucky player so that everyone is equally miserable. If one player has 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 and another player has 18, 17, 15, 12, 10, if, "if" not "must", you are going to adjust, it is better to improve the first array rather than weaken the second array.
If you're willing to "fine-tune" - the point of which is to somewhat normalise the results and try to keep different arrays from being too far apart - then this goal will obviously be better served by rerolling both extremes. In fact, rerolling only the one, low extreme has the opposite effect - it forces the average results upward, away from the norm, and still permits unusually lucky rollers to have results far better than the rest (but now without any balancing risk of being unusually unlucky).
No. There's no reason to make the lucky player miserable just because someone else got unlucky. It is irrelevant what the unlucky person gets to do. The lucky person has his awesome array and can enjoy it regardless.It provides a ballpark of array values of interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy.
And if "interesting arrays" are the reason you roll, then why would you not either:
1. Reroll nothing. After all, can't low arrays be as "interesting" as high arrays? If "interest" and "variety" are your goals, then why discard so many possibilities? Why not keep (almost) everything in play?
Game mechanics matter. If everything is low, the character will mathematically fail. "Interesting" arrays can still allow for low scores. You might end up with an 8 where you wouldn't have purchased it with Point Buy. You might get 18, 18, 14, 13, 8, 8. You can get lucky and have 18, 18, 17, 12, 10, 10. There are all sorts of "interesting" arrays.
2. Reroll both extremes equally. If "interest" and "variety" are you goals, but you still wish to have "playable" scores (thereby choosing to reroll low results), then why not do yourself the extra favour of also keeping the math in-line (by rerolling high results). You'd still have all the "interest" of unexpected outcomes, without any of the problems that come from significantly unbalanced results. Indeed, the only reason I can think of for someone looking for "interesting" results to reroll only low results is if the only results he really finds "interesting" are those which are more powerful - which I'm assuming is not the case with you.
"Interest" and "variety" are not my goals. They are fortunate consequences. I have no particular goals. I just don't care for the zero-sum forcefulness of Point Buy.
Why allow rerolls of low stat rolls. You took the gamble to roll for stats. You have to take the bad with the good.
I don't see many games going "well you roll to high you have to reroll"
Ability scores matter. You don't reroll if you get 17, 16, 13, 10, 10, 8. If everyone else rolled better and the worst of that lot is 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, then maybe fiat the 13 to 14 but it's borderline and depends on DM mood. The character would still do fine without adjustment. However, if you roll 14, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, it's a non-functioning array for a PC. There's no point to playing it, so you reroll. The player with 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 11 still has his nice array. He doesn't lose anything just because the unlucky player rerolls. If suddenly the unlucky player on his reroll gets really, really lucky and rolls 18, 18, 17, 15, 14, 13, because it was a reroll it is fair to lower it to 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 and the other player can fiat a 16 to 18 or maybe the 15.
Fine-tune adjustment is part of rolling. It provides a ballpark of array values of interesting arrays you can't get with Point Buy.
So you keep letting them use whatever reroll method you choose to till the get "good" results.
At that point you might as well use the point buy. Save time from allt he rerolling.
So you keep letting them use whatever reroll method you choose to till the get "good" results.
At that point you might as well use the point buy. Save time from allt he rerolling.
Saving time is irrelevant. I don't think all dice rolling methods are good. I already mentioned I find what my DM will use to be too much. If you need to do "algebra or calculus" you are doing too much. 4d6, drop lowest, 6 times, arrange as desired, works just fine.
It's not as if Point Buy can't have high powered arrays of its own. You can have 36 or 40 Point Buy games.
So you keep letting them use whatever reroll method you choose to till the get "good" results.
At that point you might as well use the point buy. Save time from allt he rerolling.
Saving time is irrelevant. I don't think all dice rolling methods are good. I already mentioned I find what my DM will use to be too much. If you need to do "algebra or calculus" you are doing too much. 4d6, drop lowest, 6 times, arrange as desired, works just fine.
It's not as if Point Buy can't have high powered arrays of its own. You can have 36 or 40 Point Buy games.
this seems to be the complete oppisit of what you just said
However, if you roll 14, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, it's a non-functioning array for a PC. There's no point to playing it, so you reroll.
right here you said you would reroll if the stats are to low. IMHO even the numbers you gave doesn't make the PC a non-function like your said
He doesn't lose anything just because the unlucky player rerolls. If suddenly the unlucky player on his reroll gets really, really lucky and rolls 18, 18, 17, 15, 14, 13, because it was a reroll it is fair to lower it to 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 and the other player can fiat a 16 to 18 or maybe the 15.
So now that person who had to reroll because he lowed to roll is getting punished because he is rolling to high. This again seems like a lot of work for a rolling method.
4d6, drop lowest, 6 times, arrange as desired, works just fine
This has been pretty much the standard since atleast 3rd. In your previous post you talked about rerolls, adjusting stats. I think hey if your going to gamble with your PC your going to take the bad rolls as well as the good rerolls.
It's not as if Point Buy can't have high powered arrays of its own. You can have 36 or 40 Point Buy games.
that's true but if the DM raises the point buy it was a descion to have a high stat game. Rolling gives random numbers that the DM has no control over. Unless he allows rerolls, after reroll until they get the desire results. Then you might as well use point to get the desire results your looking for
I started another thread about high stats that are not your primary or secondry doesn't have that much of effect on the game
I have said in a few threads. I wish stat rollers stop saying its a balance system and so on and so on. The rollers love rolling for stats cause its fun.
)* Gets Navar100 some aspirin. All that back-peddling must be exhausting *
* Gets Navar100 some aspirin. All that back-peddling must be exhausting *
I think a mirror would help better
* Gets Navar100 some aspirin. All that back-peddling must be exhausting *
I think a mirror would help better
He doesn't need to see where he's going. If he backs over something and doesn't like that outcome, he can simply reroll.
* Gets Navar100 some aspirin. All that back-peddling must be exhausting *
I think a mirror would help better
He doesn't need to see where he's going. If he backs over something and doesn't like that outcome, he can simply reroll.
oh snap!