which method of the ability stat generation do you like more? Do you like the standard array of the 8, 10, 12, etc. or do you like to rely on the roll of the dice to determine the stats? Or do you use the point system? Personally I like the roll of the dice method, but I feel like it can lead to pretty unbalanced character stats.
Personally, I prefer to roll 4d6 drop the lowest, roll 7 times and drop the lowest and arrange to taste. But that is because I prefer Big Damn Heroes Roleplaying. To my mind a PC with poor stats should remain a dirt farmer. In games I run, if there is a *chance* of acrimony because one player rolls higher than others I will use the Standard Array. Even typing the name causes me physical pain though since it is something I would not want on my personal characters. I only impose it when the group seems to need to be well standardized for the "fun" of all.
For the pregens I create for my weekly drop-in campaign, I use standard array, because it's quick and easy, and I don't have to have dice with me, just access to DDB. Those pregens are for new players; experienced players can us 4d6 drop the lowest for their stats, or standard array or point buy. Most choose to roll dice. (I do allow them to use standard array if they roll poorly).
I prefer standard array as it cuts down on the variance from player to player regarding stat power level. If a player isn't able to make it in person to a session 0, I have them use the standard array, just to keep people honest. Players who can make session 0 in person are free to choose from the standard array, rolling, or point buy, but I still encourage the standard array.
This post has potentially manipulated dice roll results.
Our group consists of the same players sometimes with me as a DM and sometimes with another player as a DM depending on the games. Between us are 4 games. We like big stats (and we cannot lie) and it doesn't make a huge difference given the DMs can just adjust stats of enemies and task DCs to compensate where it is needed.
Our method is: make 3 separate sets. Each set is made by rolling 4 scores as 4d6 drop lowest and the remaining two scores are 18 and 8. After making 3 sets pick the one you want and reroll the lowest of the rolled scores - you can then keep the original score or the rerolled.
For example:
Set 1: 18, 8, 10, 13, 13, 14 Set 2: 18, 8, 8, 11, 8, 13 Set 3: 18, 8, 10, 13, 9, 14 Reroll Lowest: 15
So, I would pick Set 1 which would give me the stats: 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 8.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I always roll, much prefer it that way. Doesn't matter to me if I become optimized or suboptimal. One of my favorite characters I ever played was a Tabaxi Rogue with a 13 Dex, after racial modifier. It was his only non-negative modifier. Lasted to level 4, but he had one hell of a ride.
As a DM, I'll allow whatever option the group would have the most fun with. So far, it's been rolling.
I like point buy. If you start with a 20 in your main stat then you aren't going to get stronger with levels, and I feel that takes away from the game. Having 8-17 is not poor stats. A commoner has 6 10s.
Widely varying character stats can also negatively impact the game when one player is very powerful, and the others are struggling to be useful.
However I respect that some of my players want more randomness and a potential for high stats, so at my table (not on forums) I allow another method I'd read on Giants in the Playground. I provide a set of playing cards totalling 72 (as the standard array does) it contains three 6s and three 2s. Four each of 3s, 4s, and 5s. So you can draw all three 6s and get an 18, but the sum of your remaining stats will suffer. You could draw all three 2s and have a 6 dump stat and your remaining stats would benefit.
In practice it's come out pretty level and players have a fair chance to start with an 18 through racial bonuses.
I personally prefer to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. It's a little more dramatic and adds a little fun to rolling a character. However, as a DM I give my players the following options:
1. Roll 4d6, drop the lowest. They get 1 mulligan and then plug in scores as they see fit.
2. Hard Mode: Roll 4d6, drop lowest, but plug in scores IN ORDER: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. They get 1 mulligan for body stats and 1 for mind stats.
I've had one player roll Hard Mode and he actually did pretty well. I like it because it again ramps up the drama in rolling a character and gives the players interesting challenges to overcome throughout the game.
I always used to use the 4d6 drop lowest method, since 1st edition AD&D (I used 3d6 in order for basic D&D, as that was what the rules said).
I massively prefer points system or standard array these days for one single reason - equality of the party.
Want to play a tough, strong Barbarian and your best stats are 14 & 15? Sure, put it in strength & con and get a racial bonus, you're at 16 str and 16 con and good to go.
What if the party cleric happened to roll three 18s? They put them into WIS, CON & STR. They end up with 19 STR and 19 CON because, say, they are human.
Well, now they're significantly stronger than the Barbarian and tougher too.
Now the person playing the Barbarian is in a place where the thing that their character should be best at according to everything they're trying to do, puts them in a situation where, "It's ok, just let the cleric do it - they're strongest"
Standard array or points leads to meaningful decisions when creating characters, where the player decides what the character is good at and it balances the party a LOT better.
I'd much rather that players in my group are having fun, than risk a situation where someone wants to re-roll their character just because they feel weak due to bad rolls, especially if that's just because someone else had good rolls.
I strongly believe that players should start out on equal terms when they enter a campaign, so point buy is a good mode. This allows you to get decent numbers in the stats you need (e.g. INT for a wizard) and not suck at the rest. If you want to be exceptional at a stat right from the start, you have to take the toll (e.g. by having 8 in one slot). As a DM, you can reward the whole party later any time you want with "a sip from the potion of awesomeness" and let them increase a stat by one or two points, if you feel the group is not heroic enough (I'd rather do that than handing out stat increasing magical items, IMHO).
Rolling abilities only works if the players are absolutely immune to power gaming and type casting by abilities. Campaign 2 of Critical Role is a good example for that. Molly was the most talkative and vocal in the group when it came to interacting with NPCs, although he had the second lowest CHA score (right after Nott). Power games would always send Fjord to talk to NPCs and sideline those with lesser chances of success. And if you compare Yasha (two single digit stats) with e.g. Caleb, the wizard has far superior stats (with the exception of STR). Liam doesn't play him that way though, trying to outdo her or others with his better stat bonuses.
I don't see stats as super important. Sure, having very sucky stats compared to others is not great but it depends on what your character is intending to do. You might be a Wizard with +3 INT and your group Fighter could have +4 INT, but out of the two of them it'll be the Wizard with Arcana proficiency to help you with problems relating to magic. With different proficiencies and class options the difference in stats is reduced by this.
Let's not forget a skill test can be limited to only those with proficiency if it seems relevant. Obscure bit of lore not known by any ordinary public? The guy with +5 INT but not history proficient can't do anything there but the one who studied for years to learn obscure things and has proficiency is suddenly more suited and has to step up even if they only had +2 INT.
If the disparity between rolls is too great then the DM can allow rerolls after discussing with the group or impose a total limit that must be reached by adding scores/mods.
I like point buy. If you start with a 20 in your main stat then you aren't going to get stronger with levels, and I feel that takes away from the game. Having 8-17 is not poor stats. A commoner has 6 10s.
In our group we started with 20 in a main stat and are now level 12 having not once ever found any problem with getting stronger every single level. Class progression, feats, higher CR enemies with greater loot/items, every level brings us more. Every level makes us stronger without needing to increase stats. It's a lot more freeing when those special levels come around and you can happily take extra options in feats making your character more useful and unique and more adapted to more situations instead of having to take a very boring ASI. I mean seriously for most its a choice between:
ASI: "I've struggled, faced horrors, barely survived and I... Add 1 to my attack."
Feat: "I've struggled, faced horrors, barely survived and I get Sentinel letting me stop enemies, defend entryways and get more strategic options!"
They both offer benefit but I would guess that the Feat option is going to excite people a lot more. Especially if you are tactful of feat selection combined with class options.
Now add that you could be Level 20 with +3 mod for your main stat and still succeed. This is why you have a proficiency bonus that scales as you level automatically and add it to everything: your attacks, saves, etc that you focus on all increase as you level. Your DM will be factoring your current stats and adjusting DC and enemy stats as necessary to accommodate. Whether your mod is +2 or +200 they can set the challenge you face to the difficulty they want.
It's probably very subjective and each group will be different yada yada. But in my group we had point buy and going with basic rolls and progressed in those. Later when making new chars we chose a new way and ended up starting with high stats, even 20 right at level 1. We had a blast and found it much more enjoyable and our challenges remained difficult and even nearly TPKing. To a DM your stats are entirely, utterly, irrelevant.
Want to play a tough, strong Barbarian and your best stats are 14 & 15? Sure, put it in strength & con and get a racial bonus, you're at 16 str and 16 con and good to go.
What if the party cleric happened to roll three 18s? They put them into WIS, CON & STR. They end up with 19 STR and 19 CON because, say, they are human.
Well, now they're significantly stronger than the Barbarian and tougher too.
Now the person playing the Barbarian is in a place where the thing that their character should be best at according to everything they're trying to do, puts them in a situation where, "It's ok, just let the cleric do it - they're strongest"
Eh?
Barbarians are for BATTLE and a Barbarian with +3 Str/Con is better in battle than a +4 Str/Con Cleric regardless of Domain choice. A Barbarian with +3 Con starts with 15 HP while a +4 Con cleric starts with 12 HP. So a Barbarian can take more hits.
If we assume 13 into Dex: A Cleric could be a War Domain or Life cleric or such getting heavy armour and choosing Chain Mail which starts them with an AC of 16 and disadvantage at stealth whle other domains are limited to medium armour and scale mail with AC 14 + Dex (max 2) or 15 still with disadvantage to stealth. Or if wanting to maintain some stealth can go leather armour and 11 + dex or 12. The Barbarian doesn't start with armour but gets Unarmoured Defense which is AC + Dex + Con which in our example is AC 14 and get to be as stealth as they like. Given how dependent it is on Domain choice I will put this as a draw.
Clerics and Barbarians both get proficiency with Shields but only a Cleric can start with one. This can allow them to get an AC from 14 to 18 depending on other choices but if they use one they lose the option of a two-handed weapon. However, Barbarian rage grants the ability to reduce any bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage (even magical) by half - this can often prove to be more helpful than a shield so I consider this equal also given the reduced damage dealt by one-handed weapons if a shield is used. For rest of example then I will be focusing on two-handed weapon usage.
A Cleric starts with proficiency with simple weapons but some domains may offer martial weapons. We assume they got a martial weapon and may only start with warhammer. However, for the sake of example let's say they start with a Greataxe, the common starting choice for a Barbarian. A Cleric can attack with a Greataxe: 1d20 +2 (prof) + 4 (mod) and deal 1d12 + 4 dmg. A Barbarian swings for 1d20 +2 (prof) +3 (mod) which is not a huge difference and deal, when raging, 1d12 + 4 + 2 (rage). The damage makes up for the marginal difference in attack rate. This rage damage will increase over time and they'll be able to attack more than the Cleric - in no time the Barbarian will be dishing out more damage than the Cleric in direct combat, and with the higher health and damage reduction will outlast the cleric in direct melee fights as well. Then add that Rage gives advantage to strength checks and saves so the Barbarian can better restrain enemies, break doors down, and more.
Unless there is a huge difference in stats and you have a dumb DM the Cleric will never, ever, outperform a Barbarian in direct melee battle. Clerics can battle in melee but will need to make use of their spells while a Barbarian never needs to.
In a game with customisation of feats, class and more and with DM fiat and dice rolls - couple points difference in stats is of no actual significance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is a lot of the game outside of battle though.
That's an example of an actual game I played in (I was playing neither character). It was 2nd edition, which loaded the bonuses more towards the top end of stats. I should have mentioned that in my post actually. The characters were created in isolation, so it's not like the Cleric set out to take game away from the Barbarian, but it happened that way .... all the time. STR checks to break down doors? The Cleric was way better. Con checks to survive poison and rescue everyone, when the Barbarian was unconscious from failing their save? You get the idea.
5th edition is much better, so the situation wouldn't be as extreme.
I'm not going to say anyone is wrong for preferring stats to be randomly generated.
The OP asked what people preferred though, so I thought it reasonable to explain why. :)
which method of the ability stat generation do you like more? Do you like the standard array of the 8, 10, 12, etc. or do you like to rely on the roll of the dice to determine the stats? Or do you use the point system? Personally I like the roll of the dice method, but I feel like it can lead to pretty unbalanced character stats.
Personally, I prefer to roll 4d6 drop the lowest, roll 7 times and drop the lowest and arrange to taste. But that is because I prefer Big Damn Heroes Roleplaying. To my mind a PC with poor stats should remain a dirt farmer. In games I run, if there is a *chance* of acrimony because one player rolls higher than others I will use the Standard Array. Even typing the name causes me physical pain though since it is something I would not want on my personal characters. I only impose it when the group seems to need to be well standardized for the "fun" of all.
I personally use 3d6 drop lowest, add 6. I dont like how standard array and point buy don't go up to 16.
I like hawksmoor's method though. Never considered rolling 7 in my attempts to increase stat average.
For the pregens I create for my weekly drop-in campaign, I use standard array, because it's quick and easy, and I don't have to have dice with me, just access to DDB. Those pregens are for new players; experienced players can us 4d6 drop the lowest for their stats, or standard array or point buy. Most choose to roll dice. (I do allow them to use standard array if they roll poorly).
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I prefer standard array as it cuts down on the variance from player to player regarding stat power level. If a player isn't able to make it in person to a session 0, I have them use the standard array, just to keep people honest. Players who can make session 0 in person are free to choose from the standard array, rolling, or point buy, but I still encourage the standard array.
Our group consists of the same players sometimes with me as a DM and sometimes with another player as a DM depending on the games. Between us are 4 games. We like big stats (and we cannot lie) and it doesn't make a huge difference given the DMs can just adjust stats of enemies and task DCs to compensate where it is needed.
Our method is: make 3 separate sets. Each set is made by rolling 4 scores as 4d6 drop lowest and the remaining two scores are 18 and 8. After making 3 sets pick the one you want and reroll the lowest of the rolled scores - you can then keep the original score or the rerolled.
For example:
Set 1: 18, 8, 10, 13, 13, 14
Set 2: 18, 8, 8, 11, 8, 13
Set 3: 18, 8, 10, 13, 9, 14
Reroll Lowest: 15
So, I would pick Set 1 which would give me the stats: 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 8.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I always roll, much prefer it that way. Doesn't matter to me if I become optimized or suboptimal. One of my favorite characters I ever played was a Tabaxi Rogue with a 13 Dex, after racial modifier. It was his only non-negative modifier. Lasted to level 4, but he had one hell of a ride.
As a DM, I'll allow whatever option the group would have the most fun with. So far, it's been rolling.
I like point buy. If you start with a 20 in your main stat then you aren't going to get stronger with levels, and I feel that takes away from the game. Having 8-17 is not poor stats. A commoner has 6 10s.
Widely varying character stats can also negatively impact the game when one player is very powerful, and the others are struggling to be useful.
However I respect that some of my players want more randomness and a potential for high stats, so at my table (not on forums) I allow another method I'd read on Giants in the Playground. I provide a set of playing cards totalling 72 (as the standard array does) it contains three 6s and three 2s. Four each of 3s, 4s, and 5s. So you can draw all three 6s and get an 18, but the sum of your remaining stats will suffer. You could draw all three 2s and have a 6 dump stat and your remaining stats would benefit.
In practice it's come out pretty level and players have a fair chance to start with an 18 through racial bonuses.
Extended Signature
Basically if you want big powerful characters in your campaign start at level 10.
Extended Signature
I personally prefer to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. It's a little more dramatic and adds a little fun to rolling a character. However, as a DM I give my players the following options:
1. Roll 4d6, drop the lowest. They get 1 mulligan and then plug in scores as they see fit.
2. Hard Mode: Roll 4d6, drop lowest, but plug in scores IN ORDER: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. They get 1 mulligan for body stats and 1 for mind stats.
I've had one player roll Hard Mode and he actually did pretty well. I like it because it again ramps up the drama in rolling a character and gives the players interesting challenges to overcome throughout the game.
I always used to use the 4d6 drop lowest method, since 1st edition AD&D (I used 3d6 in order for basic D&D, as that was what the rules said).
I massively prefer points system or standard array these days for one single reason - equality of the party.
Want to play a tough, strong Barbarian and your best stats are 14 & 15? Sure, put it in strength & con and get a racial bonus, you're at 16 str and 16 con and good to go.
What if the party cleric happened to roll three 18s? They put them into WIS, CON & STR. They end up with 19 STR and 19 CON because, say, they are human.
Well, now they're significantly stronger than the Barbarian and tougher too.
Now the person playing the Barbarian is in a place where the thing that their character should be best at according to everything they're trying to do, puts them in a situation where, "It's ok, just let the cleric do it - they're strongest"
Standard array or points leads to meaningful decisions when creating characters, where the player decides what the character is good at and it balances the party a LOT better.
I'd much rather that players in my group are having fun, than risk a situation where someone wants to re-roll their character just because they feel weak due to bad rolls, especially if that's just because someone else had good rolls.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I strongly believe that players should start out on equal terms when they enter a campaign, so point buy is a good mode. This allows you to get decent numbers in the stats you need (e.g. INT for a wizard) and not suck at the rest. If you want to be exceptional at a stat right from the start, you have to take the toll (e.g. by having 8 in one slot). As a DM, you can reward the whole party later any time you want with "a sip from the potion of awesomeness" and let them increase a stat by one or two points, if you feel the group is not heroic enough (I'd rather do that than handing out stat increasing magical items, IMHO).
Rolling abilities only works if the players are absolutely immune to power gaming and type casting by abilities. Campaign 2 of Critical Role is a good example for that. Molly was the most talkative and vocal in the group when it came to interacting with NPCs, although he had the second lowest CHA score (right after Nott). Power games would always send Fjord to talk to NPCs and sideline those with lesser chances of success. And if you compare Yasha (two single digit stats) with e.g. Caleb, the wizard has far superior stats (with the exception of STR). Liam doesn't play him that way though, trying to outdo her or others with his better stat bonuses.
I don't see stats as super important. Sure, having very sucky stats compared to others is not great but it depends on what your character is intending to do. You might be a Wizard with +3 INT and your group Fighter could have +4 INT, but out of the two of them it'll be the Wizard with Arcana proficiency to help you with problems relating to magic. With different proficiencies and class options the difference in stats is reduced by this.
Let's not forget a skill test can be limited to only those with proficiency if it seems relevant. Obscure bit of lore not known by any ordinary public? The guy with +5 INT but not history proficient can't do anything there but the one who studied for years to learn obscure things and has proficiency is suddenly more suited and has to step up even if they only had +2 INT.
If the disparity between rolls is too great then the DM can allow rerolls after discussing with the group or impose a total limit that must be reached by adding scores/mods.
In our group we started with 20 in a main stat and are now level 12 having not once ever found any problem with getting stronger every single level. Class progression, feats, higher CR enemies with greater loot/items, every level brings us more. Every level makes us stronger without needing to increase stats. It's a lot more freeing when those special levels come around and you can happily take extra options in feats making your character more useful and unique and more adapted to more situations instead of having to take a very boring ASI. I mean seriously for most its a choice between:
ASI: "I've struggled, faced horrors, barely survived and I... Add 1 to my attack."
Feat: "I've struggled, faced horrors, barely survived and I get Sentinel letting me stop enemies, defend entryways and get more strategic options!"
They both offer benefit but I would guess that the Feat option is going to excite people a lot more. Especially if you are tactful of feat selection combined with class options.
Now add that you could be Level 20 with +3 mod for your main stat and still succeed. This is why you have a proficiency bonus that scales as you level automatically and add it to everything: your attacks, saves, etc that you focus on all increase as you level. Your DM will be factoring your current stats and adjusting DC and enemy stats as necessary to accommodate. Whether your mod is +2 or +200 they can set the challenge you face to the difficulty they want.
It's probably very subjective and each group will be different yada yada. But in my group we had point buy and going with basic rolls and progressed in those. Later when making new chars we chose a new way and ended up starting with high stats, even 20 right at level 1. We had a blast and found it much more enjoyable and our challenges remained difficult and even nearly TPKing. To a DM your stats are entirely, utterly, irrelevant.
Eh?
Barbarians are for BATTLE and a Barbarian with +3 Str/Con is better in battle than a +4 Str/Con Cleric regardless of Domain choice. A Barbarian with +3 Con starts with 15 HP while a +4 Con cleric starts with 12 HP. So a Barbarian can take more hits.
If we assume 13 into Dex: A Cleric could be a War Domain or Life cleric or such getting heavy armour and choosing Chain Mail which starts them with an AC of 16 and disadvantage at stealth whle other domains are limited to medium armour and scale mail with AC 14 + Dex (max 2) or 15 still with disadvantage to stealth. Or if wanting to maintain some stealth can go leather armour and 11 + dex or 12. The Barbarian doesn't start with armour but gets Unarmoured Defense which is AC + Dex + Con which in our example is AC 14 and get to be as stealth as they like. Given how dependent it is on Domain choice I will put this as a draw.
Clerics and Barbarians both get proficiency with Shields but only a Cleric can start with one. This can allow them to get an AC from 14 to 18 depending on other choices but if they use one they lose the option of a two-handed weapon. However, Barbarian rage grants the ability to reduce any bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage (even magical) by half - this can often prove to be more helpful than a shield so I consider this equal also given the reduced damage dealt by one-handed weapons if a shield is used. For rest of example then I will be focusing on two-handed weapon usage.
A Cleric starts with proficiency with simple weapons but some domains may offer martial weapons. We assume they got a martial weapon and may only start with warhammer. However, for the sake of example let's say they start with a Greataxe, the common starting choice for a Barbarian. A Cleric can attack with a Greataxe: 1d20 +2 (prof) + 4 (mod) and deal 1d12 + 4 dmg. A Barbarian swings for 1d20 +2 (prof) +3 (mod) which is not a huge difference and deal, when raging, 1d12 + 4 + 2 (rage). The damage makes up for the marginal difference in attack rate. This rage damage will increase over time and they'll be able to attack more than the Cleric - in no time the Barbarian will be dishing out more damage than the Cleric in direct combat, and with the higher health and damage reduction will outlast the cleric in direct melee fights as well. Then add that Rage gives advantage to strength checks and saves so the Barbarian can better restrain enemies, break doors down, and more.
Unless there is a huge difference in stats and you have a dumb DM the Cleric will never, ever, outperform a Barbarian in direct melee battle. Clerics can battle in melee but will need to make use of their spells while a Barbarian never needs to.
In a game with customisation of feats, class and more and with DM fiat and dice rolls - couple points difference in stats is of no actual significance.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is a lot of the game outside of battle though.
That's an example of an actual game I played in (I was playing neither character). It was 2nd edition, which loaded the bonuses more towards the top end of stats. I should have mentioned that in my post actually. The characters were created in isolation, so it's not like the Cleric set out to take game away from the Barbarian, but it happened that way .... all the time. STR checks to break down doors? The Cleric was way better. Con checks to survive poison and rescue everyone, when the Barbarian was unconscious from failing their save? You get the idea.
5th edition is much better, so the situation wouldn't be as extreme.
I'm not going to say anyone is wrong for preferring stats to be randomly generated.
The OP asked what people preferred though, so I thought it reasonable to explain why. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊