Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats. Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you? Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I am prepared for the shouting. I get what I deserve ;P
The problem is this. If rerolls are allowed or expected it defeats the purpose. I rolled obscenely well for my latest character. Two 18s, a 16, and the rest above 13. It was broken. And for the sake of not being so far beyond everyone else I chose to just straight add a minus 10 and a minus 8 to some skills.
another player rolled equally as well but didn’t want to reroll. Their lowest stat is a 10 and at level 5 they have multiple stats at 18 and one at 20. They didn’t want to reroll because they landed those rolls fairly. But immediately they were so much stronger than the rest of us. And that isn’t their problem.
I love rolling stats because I like to have higher highs and lower lows. But it makes balance a nightmare. People feel weaker than others for luck. That person with better stats can build more feats freely. I don’t need to get to 18 charisma as I rolled it. I can take shadowtouched for free or warcaster early. That’s the problem there. The difference between +1 and +2 is reasonable. But being closer to the capstone early just means more feats which can be broken.
Hmm I'm not convinced having high scores is a big deal. Whenever I've had high scores and people were surprised about my output, it wasn't really about that extra 1 or 2 that my modifier added. It was because because stars aligned and my class ability really shine. For example, my Paladin with 20 Cha hit a guy with tons of HP with a crit (my sword used Cha instead of Str). You bet I Divine Smited his butt, rolled really high on damage too. Trust me, it wasn't the +2 I got from having Cha at 20 versus at 16 that impressed them.
Feats are mentioned...but I'm not convinced. Assuming you want to max out relevant stats, and you start with straight 18s, then you'll want to use at least your Tier 1 and Tier 2 improvements to do so. That means you're not getting feats until you start Tier 4 (using the Tier 3 improvement to get a feat), which is outside most game ranges (or only minimally within them), so unless you're doing an especially long campaign, it's marginal. If you are, then as DM, if I were concerned, I'd just throw in a few tomes to rebalance the party. Or have a travelling mentor take a shine to the weakest member and teach him a feat or something. You can always fix these things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Hmm I'm not convinced having high scores is a big deal. Whenever I've had high scores and people were surprised about my output, it wasn't really about that extra 1 or 2 that my modifier added. It was because because stars aligned and my class ability really shine. For example, my Paladin with 20 Cha hit a guy with tons of HP with a crit (my sword used Cha instead of Str). You bet I Divine Smited his butt, rolled really high on damage too. Trust me, it wasn't the +2 I got from having Cha at 20 versus at 16 that impressed them.
Feats are mentioned...but I'm not convinced. Assuming you want to max out relevant stats, and you start with straight 18s, then you'll want to use at least your Tier 1 and Tier 2 improvements to do so. That means you're not getting feats until you start Tier 4 (using the Tier 3 improvement to get a feat), which is outside most game ranges (or only minimally within them), so unless you're doing an especially long campaign, it's marginal. If you are, then as DM, if I were concerned, I'd just throw in a few tomes to rebalance the party. Or have a travelling mentor take a shine to the weakest member and teach him a feat or something. You can always fix these things.
But you mention people using tier one and two to get to 20. But if I roll well, I could have a 20 at level 1, or level 4. Being able to just not have to chase that 20 is HUGE. If I start with a 20 in a stat I am free to pick flavour feats and still be the same power if not more. I could choose feats that are build defining early with no penalty. The plus 1 isn’t the problem. It’s what not having to chase that plus 1 that makes the difference. A person who starts with 17 strength finds it way harder to justify great weapon master at 4 compared to someone at 18 or 20 strength. And man what a boost that is. Same with sharpshooter. And then you have things like metamagic adept for sorcerer. It’s so hard to normally fit in until way later. Warcaster early?
because standard array nets you a 17 at first. Nothing more unless variant human and a specific feat start. Which means they have to pick a feat or asi to get them to 18. Starting at 18 just is SO much more freedom.
as for your paladin, getting 20 charisma early sure helps with literally everything. The aura, more spells earlier, the to hit roll, spell save dc (which is huge), and just then being able to specialise elsewhere. A level you didn’t have to get an asi you can just take tough, or heavy armour master, or something that gives you proficiencies that you just wouldn’t fit in.
It exposed table envy and roleplayers, and "roleplayers".
I had a player roll 3 on a stat for two characters, and they ran with it.
I actually considered changing 4d6dl for 2d6+6 to force minimums. The average is still similar.
Uh..huh...playing a char with a 3 in a stat...sure. Can't be Int, Con, Str, or Wis. 3 Dex....maybe, but I don't see it. 3 CHA... possible, depending on how the DM runs the game.
One was Intelligence, one was Charisma. It was a Pact of the Chain Warlock who's character was the Imp who mind controlled a Duergar :P
AnyDice have an article on the probabilities. Many years (40+) ago I actually manually calculated the same thing for AD&D and (IIRC) found the same results. Essentially the mean average roll is 12.34 and the chance of getting an 18 as one of your 6 rolls is a little under 10%. The chance of having a (single) 16 as your highest roll is over 50%.
The standard array gives an "average" (arithmetic mean) score over 6 abilities of 12, not including racial bonuses. Point buy gives a mean of 12.5 if you use only 12s and 13s but if you select 3x15 and dump the others the mean is only 11.5!!! This leaves the idea of a house rule (or personal rule) for use with dice rolling:
if the ability scores (before racial bonuses) are added together this comes to less than 66 (mean score 11) allow a complete re-role or re-rolling the lowest 2 scores
if the total is equal or greater than 81 (mean score 13.5) or 84+(mean 14) then insist on a re-roll.
As far as racial bonuses are concerned, consider this, standard humans get 6 extra points ...
I’ve used it and never had a problem with it. On the rare occasion that a player came in with 4 different 18s, I just gently told them to go try again. No one ever had a problem with it. Of course, the people I played with were also a self-selecting group and excluded people who seemed like they would abuse the system right from the start. It might be different if you’re playing with a party of strangers online.
Rolls should be done camera or in person with GM (unless DDB allows you to see what each player actually rolled for their stats now).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Haven’t read through all of this, so sorry if I’m repeating an earlier point, but one potential with the standard rolling is that even if you get a good roll for your main stat, it can still undercut MAD classes; if I’m trying to play a Monk and I get numbers that let me swing 16 for DEX but only 13 for WIS, that’s gonna seriously impair my DC and will leave me with somewhat low AC and HP. Rangers, Paladins, and gish subclasses all need decent numbers in at least two or three scores, so rolling can easily preclude those options even if you get a good roll and no awful ones
Haven’t read through all of this, so sorry if I’m repeating an earlier point, but one potential with the standard rolling is that even if you get a good roll for your main stat, it can still undercut MAD classes
Eh, that cuts both ways; it can also make MAD classes far easier. In the end, the problem with rolling is that it places too much weight on a single set of die rolls; "roll well and for the next hour you're godly, roll poorly and you're a chump" is fine, change "next hour" to "next year" and it's not so fine...
Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats. Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you? Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I am prepared for the shouting. I get what I deserve ;P
There have been 8 pages of discussion and I don't know if you got the answer you were looking for, but for me its super obvious.
Rolling for ability scores as a whole is an old-school D&D thing, born out of an era where players that came to the table did not "Create Characters", they "Generated Characters". You did not come to a D&D table and tell the DM "I want to play X or Y" type character. You rolled dice to find out what sort of character you were going to play.
When the game evolved to give players control over character generation and it became character creation, the only reason ability score rolling remained in the game was out of a weird sense of nostalgia and historical connection with a strange resistance to the evolutions of the game. Strictly speaking, point buy should be the only method in D&D since pretty much 3rd edition D&D, rolling for ability scores doesn't make any bloody sense whatsoever for the game given its current design and gameplay philosophies.
People argue about it mainly because every other aspect of character creation is player choice. There are no ability score requirements or restrictions, any other choice about your character is a decision not a random roll. So why on earth would you roll ability scores?
It's just a thing from the past that the game carries over because the designers and proprietors of the product don't understand how or why the game was designed the way it was in the first place. They don't understand why ability score generation was created and what purpose it served in the game, even though they have already eliminated the actual purpose of having ability score rolling from the game years ago, so they leave stuff like this in the game out of ignorance.
I have not read all of the posts, but I really like the USE THE 74 POINT WHATEVER WAY YOU LIKE, method. To me, a 10 stat will fail a save the same as a 6. My lvl 1 Bugbear has 19, 10, 18, 6, 18, 6.
I love it. I'm great at some stuff and suck at others. 9s to 12s all feel like wasted points to me.
Speaking as someone who began by playing OE about 1976 then went on to play (and occasionally GM) AD&D 1st edition back in 1978, I believe the point of stats randomisation is to get people to actually roleplay. Having some good stats gets your character class but also having bad stats means you have to roleplay to accommodate them.
Bad Charisma characters might well be scruffy, smell faintly of fish and/or avoid social interaction (OK those could also apply to Fathomless warlocks)
Low Wisdom might mean you proudly show off the scars where you were caught in traps and think that it will be OK to put your hand in that suspicious slot
Poor Intelligence perhaps you do not understand warnings from other party members or you fail to recall exactly what the guard told you
Poor Dexterity maybe you trip up or jam mechanisms you need
Constitution - it could be you worry about catching diseases or being poisoned or insist on being healed entirely by the cleric
Strength - you could try being a slacker or, alternatively, worry about straining muscles
Roleplay is difficult and too many people end up playing the same character every time; randomisation makes that less likely
Time for reminiscence:
Back in the day I had a Cleric, good wis but poor int, the party was complaining about how few monsters there were so, all chaotic good helpful, my character shouted out "HERE, MONSTER! MONSTER!! MONSTERRRR!!!" in the large hall ... with multiple entrances ... and sets of stairs leading down. Luckily the DM wasn't in to TPKs and in any event was laughing too hard.
Also, to channel the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch, "You youngsters don't know you've been born, d6 hp for Wizards??? LUXURY! We had d4 and took double the familiar's hp total as damage if it were killed and we was thankful for it."
Yeah, can roleplay "dumb" probably better than "smart", for example. Like being ripped off at the market when shopping and not even realizing it.
It's easier to roleplay that with INT 6, than with a 10.
It would be nice if STR could also be used for intimidation checks, instead of just CHA. I think that if you're over 7 feet talk and 330lbs, you're probably intimidating. It's true in real life.
My Sorlock was not very imposing, but had 22 CHA. That should be good for persuasion.
Speaking as someone who began by playing OE about 1976 then went on to play (and occasionally GM) AD&D 1st edition back in 1978, I believe the point of stats randomisation is to get people to actually roleplay. Having some good stats gets your character class but also having bad stats means you have to roleplay to accommodate them.
That would be more convincing if stats were rolled in order rather than a pool that you can distribute as you like.
Speaking as someone who began by playing OE about 1976 then went on to play (and occasionally GM) AD&D 1st edition back in 1978, I believe the point of stats randomisation is to get people to actually roleplay. Having some good stats gets your character class but also having bad stats means you have to roleplay to accommodate them.
That would be more convincing if stats were rolled in order rather than a pool that you can distribute as you like.
Indeed, OE and B/X both had 3d6 down the line. Contrary to popular belief, however, 3d6 down the line only ever existed in Original and B/X 1st edition, it was not an official method for AD&D or any D&D edition that followed.
Players have been controlling their stats by choice placement since the 70's and frankly, the impact of stats mechanically in particular in the early edition was practically null so the only purpose they served as RighthAndyman618 points out was direction for player role-playing. But it was controlled by the player, truly random stats was only a thing in 1e OE and B/X or BECMI, never after that.
I actually tried a different system to the 4d6 drop the lowest.
I tried the following.
Every ability score starts at 10.
Players roll 1d6. They do this 6 times, and record the results. (Or they can roll 6d6 and record the results of each die)
Players then assign each number they rolled in the step above to an ability score. Making the lowest possible score they can have from this step be 11 and the highest be 16.
Players can then assign their bonuses they get from their race (however, they can put them in any ability they want) ex: +2 in DEX and +1 in CON for a DEX based fighter.
The players do not get to reroll 1s.
The above method resulted in the lowest score that a level 1 player could have in any ability being 11, while the highest was 18.
I have found this method to be far superior to either 4d6 drop the lowest, the standard array, or point buy. However, it's not officially supported in DDB, so players need to use the manual method and fill in the scores by hand. Once the character is created, ASIs work as normal up to a max score of 20.
This method also let's players max out their two most important abilities more quickly, and can then put more ASIs into secondary abilities, or take feats to further enhance and customise their character.
I don't allow multiclassing.
I do let players change their class as often as they want before level 5, but only between sessions. So they can try out all the classes and find the one thst fits them. They are also allowed 1 race change before level 5, but again, it must be between sessions. When a player changes their race or class, they can change eveything except their ability scores. They also lose all their equipment if they change class and have to start again with the basic equipment related to their new class.
No changes can be made to characters race or class from level 5. Players also get their first permanent magical weapon or item at Level 5 (they can choose, weapon or item), and it can be either uncommon or rare.
So progression is good, even if the players don't roll so well, although they tend to come away with at least two 16s and a 14 at level 1, and often will have at least one 18, one 16 and one 14 at level 1.
I actually tried a different system to the 4d6 drop the lowest.
I tried the following.
Every ability score starts at 10.
Players roll 1d6. They do this 6 times, and record the results. (Or they can roll 6d6 and record the results of each die)
Players then assign each number they rolled in the step above to an ability score. Making the lowest possible score they can have from this step be 11 and the highest be 16.
Players can then assign their bonuses they get from their race (however, they can put them in any ability they want) ex: +2 in DEX and +1 in CON for a DEX based fighter.
The players do not get to reroll 1s.
That's not bad...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
My default has been 4d6 since 1980, likely late half. I didn't introduce point buy or assigned scores until 85 and 90 respectively.
I gotta say, i have done the 10 + 1d6, I have done the 1d20, I have done the 2d8, i have done the 2d10, and all the rest.
THe problem isn't the rolling of dice.
The problem is folks all want their scores to be 15 to 18 on every roll, *maybe* one off in the single digits for the fun of it.
They want the multi-class 13's and the super bonuses and all the best of everything because it is a big bad world out there and they want to dominate the heck out of it.
I don't use racial bonuses. I only give ASI's at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels -- and only 1 point. The average person has a 9 to 11 score, and I dropped Sanity into the mix and then made perception its own score and ended up with 9 scores, not six.
one of which determines your ability to do magic and it isn't any of the OG 6. Spell points and all that.
I have creatures that will suck the score right out of you with their attacks -- at least one for each score, and usually about three to five. You might be excited about that 19, but after one fight it could be a 9. Thankfully, they are not common.
My concern isn't so much the way they get the character going -- I am well aware of folks who come at me with straight 18's. Fine. You have Schwarzenegger junior with a brain booster. Awesome. Good for you, Doc Samson meets Buckaroo Banzai.
I mean, really, for a lot of folks having The Ultimate Character is part of the fun for them, part of why they play. Yes, they will go on to min/max the hell out of their class and all the rest, that's the way it works. hell, I watched action movies in the 80's. I know the Chuck Norris jokes.
I once rolled a straight, full on encounter with a single 1e Paladin and 400 kobolds. Five hours of rolls, 17 Kobolds survived. It is a now legendary fight in every world I have created since. Highest score was 17 Cha.
My point? tougher PCs mean tougher encounters. The DM's job is to adapt for that, not try and stop it, unless they want only certain kinds of people, the right kinds of people, the proper people, the really top drawer sorts, the ones that are approved, to play in their game.
I've rolled a straight 18 using 3d6 in six rolls before. It happens. (I started over. Too boring.) Is it annoying? Yes. So is watching them escape my carefully planned trap. So is one of them pulling out "comprehend Languages" on an ancient scribble that solves a riddle asked three floors later. So is making me sit there for 5 hours rolling kobold d20's and damage dice while the rest of the party retreats to safety.
That is the job. I am not the author of the main characters, the players are. All I can do is set up the story -- and if they want to be The Ultimate Character while they do so, fine. if they walk through my story, well, then, time to up the stakes a little bit.
I've got ways of doing that. Half of storytelling is saying no to the main character. But that's after they exist and are in the fight, not before they even start.
roll 5d6 or 6d6 and drop the lowest 2 or lowest 3 and let it happen. Bounded accuracy be damned -- it is a rule I can say that and stick to it.
Let it be, and handle it on the back end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think the main issue many have is not a player coming at you with all 18’s. It’s one player having all 18’s vs another player having an 8, 8, 10, 11, 11, 14. When one player always seems to hit and enemies almost always fails saving throws against them. And the other player hits worse than a Stormtrooper in Star Wars and enemies always make their saves against them. One gets to feel the hero while the other wonders why they even bothered to show up at the table.
When I started playing AD&D we did roll 3d6 in order and based our character on what they qualified for. It may have not been the default method, but the group I joined had played Basic before i joined, so probably a leftover from then. It was just the way it was and we accepted that.
My current character (I’ve played for several years and just hit level 16) we did roll for stats. I did ok but do have a 4 CHA. And I’m fine with that.
But there is a possibility of drastically different stats between players and it isn’t always easy to “handle it on the back end”. Especially for new players and DMs
I really encourage everyone to try the option I explained above. This is the first time our DM has let us use it and all 6 of us "love" our characters. I'm looking forward to being reeeally strong, not just for fights, because we have 1 combat per game. I'm also looking forward to having a very low CHA and INT (6 each) purely for "roleplaying" and yes, I will fail lost of saves; more fun "roleplaying"!
I really encourage everyone to try the option I explained above. This is the first time our DM has let us use it and all 6 of us "love" our characters. I'm looking forward to being reeeally strong, not just for fights, because we have 1 combat per game. I'm also looking forward to having a very low CHA and INT (6 each) purely for "roleplaying" and yes, I will fail lost of saves; more fun "roleplaying"!
Oh yeah, 4D6 IS awful!!! ;)
I second that.
I mean even though in 5e, character generation is not a thing, 5e characters tend too be too powerful for the core mechanic and lower stats actually make things like CR rating math and equipment (magical and mundane) work.
The problem is this. If rerolls are allowed or expected it defeats the purpose. I rolled obscenely well for my latest character. Two 18s, a 16, and the rest above 13. It was broken. And for the sake of not being so far beyond everyone else I chose to just straight add a minus 10 and a minus 8 to some skills.
another player rolled equally as well but didn’t want to reroll. Their lowest stat is a 10 and at level 5 they have multiple stats at 18 and one at 20. They didn’t want to reroll because they landed those rolls fairly. But immediately they were so much stronger than the rest of us. And that isn’t their problem.
I love rolling stats because I like to have higher highs and lower lows. But it makes balance a nightmare. People feel weaker than others for luck. That person with better stats can build more feats freely. I don’t need to get to 18 charisma as I rolled it. I can take shadowtouched for free or warcaster early. That’s the problem there. The difference between +1 and +2 is reasonable. But being closer to the capstone early just means more feats which can be broken.
Hmm I'm not convinced having high scores is a big deal. Whenever I've had high scores and people were surprised about my output, it wasn't really about that extra 1 or 2 that my modifier added. It was because because stars aligned and my class ability really shine. For example, my Paladin with 20 Cha hit a guy with tons of HP with a crit (my sword used Cha instead of Str). You bet I Divine Smited his butt, rolled really high on damage too. Trust me, it wasn't the +2 I got from having Cha at 20 versus at 16 that impressed them.
Feats are mentioned...but I'm not convinced. Assuming you want to max out relevant stats, and you start with straight 18s, then you'll want to use at least your Tier 1 and Tier 2 improvements to do so. That means you're not getting feats until you start Tier 4 (using the Tier 3 improvement to get a feat), which is outside most game ranges (or only minimally within them), so unless you're doing an especially long campaign, it's marginal. If you are, then as DM, if I were concerned, I'd just throw in a few tomes to rebalance the party. Or have a travelling mentor take a shine to the weakest member and teach him a feat or something. You can always fix these things.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But you mention people using tier one and two to get to 20. But if I roll well, I could have a 20 at level 1, or level 4. Being able to just not have to chase that 20 is HUGE. If I start with a 20 in a stat I am free to pick flavour feats and still be the same power if not more. I could choose feats that are build defining early with no penalty. The plus 1 isn’t the problem. It’s what not having to chase that plus 1 that makes the difference. A person who starts with 17 strength finds it way harder to justify great weapon master at 4 compared to someone at 18 or 20 strength. And man what a boost that is. Same with sharpshooter. And then you have things like metamagic adept for sorcerer. It’s so hard to normally fit in until way later. Warcaster early?
because standard array nets you a 17 at first. Nothing more unless variant human and a specific feat start. Which means they have to pick a feat or asi to get them to 18. Starting at 18 just is SO much more freedom.
as for your paladin, getting 20 charisma early sure helps with literally everything. The aura, more spells earlier, the to hit roll, spell save dc (which is huge), and just then being able to specialise elsewhere. A level you didn’t have to get an asi you can just take tough, or heavy armour master, or something that gives you proficiencies that you just wouldn’t fit in.
One was Intelligence, one was Charisma. It was a Pact of the Chain Warlock who's character was the Imp who mind controlled a Duergar :P
AnyDice have an article on the probabilities. Many years (40+) ago I actually manually calculated the same thing for AD&D and (IIRC) found the same results. Essentially the mean average roll is 12.34 and the chance of getting an 18 as one of your 6 rolls is a little under 10%. The chance of having a (single) 16 as your highest roll is over 50%.
The standard array gives an "average" (arithmetic mean) score over 6 abilities of 12, not including racial bonuses. Point buy gives a mean of 12.5 if you use only 12s and 13s but if you select 3x15 and dump the others the mean is only 11.5!!! This leaves the idea of a house rule (or personal rule) for use with dice rolling:
As far as racial bonuses are concerned, consider this, standard humans get 6 extra points ...
Probabilities 4d6 drop 1
Rolls should be done camera or in person with GM (unless DDB allows you to see what each player actually rolled for their stats now).
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Haven’t read through all of this, so sorry if I’m repeating an earlier point, but one potential with the standard rolling is that even if you get a good roll for your main stat, it can still undercut MAD classes; if I’m trying to play a Monk and I get numbers that let me swing 16 for DEX but only 13 for WIS, that’s gonna seriously impair my DC and will leave me with somewhat low AC and HP. Rangers, Paladins, and gish subclasses all need decent numbers in at least two or three scores, so rolling can easily preclude those options even if you get a good roll and no awful ones
Eh, that cuts both ways; it can also make MAD classes far easier. In the end, the problem with rolling is that it places too much weight on a single set of die rolls; "roll well and for the next hour you're godly, roll poorly and you're a chump" is fine, change "next hour" to "next year" and it's not so fine...
There have been 8 pages of discussion and I don't know if you got the answer you were looking for, but for me its super obvious.
Rolling for ability scores as a whole is an old-school D&D thing, born out of an era where players that came to the table did not "Create Characters", they "Generated Characters". You did not come to a D&D table and tell the DM "I want to play X or Y" type character. You rolled dice to find out what sort of character you were going to play.
When the game evolved to give players control over character generation and it became character creation, the only reason ability score rolling remained in the game was out of a weird sense of nostalgia and historical connection with a strange resistance to the evolutions of the game. Strictly speaking, point buy should be the only method in D&D since pretty much 3rd edition D&D, rolling for ability scores doesn't make any bloody sense whatsoever for the game given its current design and gameplay philosophies.
People argue about it mainly because every other aspect of character creation is player choice. There are no ability score requirements or restrictions, any other choice about your character is a decision not a random roll. So why on earth would you roll ability scores?
It's just a thing from the past that the game carries over because the designers and proprietors of the product don't understand how or why the game was designed the way it was in the first place. They don't understand why ability score generation was created and what purpose it served in the game, even though they have already eliminated the actual purpose of having ability score rolling from the game years ago, so they leave stuff like this in the game out of ignorance.
I have not read all of the posts, but I really like the USE THE 74 POINT WHATEVER WAY YOU LIKE, method. To me, a 10 stat will fail a save the same as a 6. My lvl 1 Bugbear has 19, 10, 18, 6, 18, 6.
I love it. I'm great at some stuff and suck at others. 9s to 12s all feel like wasted points to me.
Speaking as someone who began by playing OE about 1976 then went on to play (and occasionally GM) AD&D 1st edition back in 1978, I believe the point of stats randomisation is to get people to actually roleplay. Having some good stats gets your character class but also having bad stats means you have to roleplay to accommodate them.
Roleplay is difficult and too many people end up playing the same character every time; randomisation makes that less likely
Time for reminiscence:
Back in the day I had a Cleric, good wis but poor int, the party was complaining about how few monsters there were so, all chaotic good helpful, my character shouted out "HERE, MONSTER! MONSTER!! MONSTERRRR!!!" in the large hall ... with multiple entrances ... and sets of stairs leading down. Luckily the DM wasn't in to TPKs and in any event was laughing too hard.
Also, to channel the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch, "You youngsters don't know you've been born, d6 hp for Wizards??? LUXURY! We had d4 and took double the familiar's hp total as damage if it were killed and we was thankful for it."
Yeah, can roleplay "dumb" probably better than "smart", for example. Like being ripped off at the market when shopping and not even realizing it.
It's easier to roleplay that with INT 6, than with a 10.
It would be nice if STR could also be used for intimidation checks, instead of just CHA. I think that if you're over 7 feet talk and 330lbs, you're probably intimidating. It's true in real life.
My Sorlock was not very imposing, but had 22 CHA. That should be good for persuasion.
That would be more convincing if stats were rolled in order rather than a pool that you can distribute as you like.
Indeed, OE and B/X both had 3d6 down the line. Contrary to popular belief, however, 3d6 down the line only ever existed in Original and B/X 1st edition, it was not an official method for AD&D or any D&D edition that followed.
Players have been controlling their stats by choice placement since the 70's and frankly, the impact of stats mechanically in particular in the early edition was practically null so the only purpose they served as RighthAndyman618 points out was direction for player role-playing. But it was controlled by the player, truly random stats was only a thing in 1e OE and B/X or BECMI, never after that.
I actually tried a different system to the 4d6 drop the lowest.
I tried the following.
The players do not get to reroll 1s.
The above method resulted in the lowest score that a level 1 player could have in any ability being 11, while the highest was 18.
I have found this method to be far superior to either 4d6 drop the lowest, the standard array, or point buy. However, it's not officially supported in DDB, so players need to use the manual method and fill in the scores by hand. Once the character is created, ASIs work as normal up to a max score of 20.
This method also let's players max out their two most important abilities more quickly, and can then put more ASIs into secondary abilities, or take feats to further enhance and customise their character.
I don't allow multiclassing.
I do let players change their class as often as they want before level 5, but only between sessions. So they can try out all the classes and find the one thst fits them. They are also allowed 1 race change before level 5, but again, it must be between sessions. When a player changes their race or class, they can change eveything except their ability scores. They also lose all their equipment if they change class and have to start again with the basic equipment related to their new class.
No changes can be made to characters race or class from level 5. Players also get their first permanent magical weapon or item at Level 5 (they can choose, weapon or item), and it can be either uncommon or rare.
So progression is good, even if the players don't roll so well, although they tend to come away with at least two 16s and a 14 at level 1, and often will have at least one 18, one 16 and one 14 at level 1.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
That's not bad...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Dayum.
People gots feelz here. I respect that.
My default has been 4d6 since 1980, likely late half. I didn't introduce point buy or assigned scores until 85 and 90 respectively.
I gotta say, i have done the 10 + 1d6, I have done the 1d20, I have done the 2d8, i have done the 2d10, and all the rest.
THe problem isn't the rolling of dice.
The problem is folks all want their scores to be 15 to 18 on every roll, *maybe* one off in the single digits for the fun of it.
They want the multi-class 13's and the super bonuses and all the best of everything because it is a big bad world out there and they want to dominate the heck out of it.
I don't use racial bonuses. I only give ASI's at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels -- and only 1 point. The average person has a 9 to 11 score, and I dropped Sanity into the mix and then made perception its own score and ended up with 9 scores, not six.
one of which determines your ability to do magic and it isn't any of the OG 6. Spell points and all that.
I have creatures that will suck the score right out of you with their attacks -- at least one for each score, and usually about three to five. You might be excited about that 19, but after one fight it could be a 9. Thankfully, they are not common.
My concern isn't so much the way they get the character going -- I am well aware of folks who come at me with straight 18's. Fine. You have Schwarzenegger junior with a brain booster. Awesome. Good for you, Doc Samson meets Buckaroo Banzai.
I mean, really, for a lot of folks having The Ultimate Character is part of the fun for them, part of why they play. Yes, they will go on to min/max the hell out of their class and all the rest, that's the way it works. hell, I watched action movies in the 80's. I know the Chuck Norris jokes.
I once rolled a straight, full on encounter with a single 1e Paladin and 400 kobolds. Five hours of rolls, 17 Kobolds survived. It is a now legendary fight in every world I have created since. Highest score was 17 Cha.
My point? tougher PCs mean tougher encounters. The DM's job is to adapt for that, not try and stop it, unless they want only certain kinds of people, the right kinds of people, the proper people, the really top drawer sorts, the ones that are approved, to play in their game.
I've rolled a straight 18 using 3d6 in six rolls before. It happens. (I started over. Too boring.) Is it annoying? Yes. So is watching them escape my carefully planned trap. So is one of them pulling out "comprehend Languages" on an ancient scribble that solves a riddle asked three floors later. So is making me sit there for 5 hours rolling kobold d20's and damage dice while the rest of the party retreats to safety.
That is the job. I am not the author of the main characters, the players are. All I can do is set up the story -- and if they want to be The Ultimate Character while they do so, fine. if they walk through my story, well, then, time to up the stakes a little bit.
I've got ways of doing that. Half of storytelling is saying no to the main character. But that's after they exist and are in the fight, not before they even start.
roll 5d6 or 6d6 and drop the lowest 2 or lowest 3 and let it happen. Bounded accuracy be damned -- it is a rule I can say that and stick to it.
Let it be, and handle it on the back end.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think the main issue many have is not a player coming at you with all 18’s. It’s one player having all 18’s vs another player having an 8, 8, 10, 11, 11, 14. When one player always seems to hit and enemies almost always fails saving throws against them. And the other player hits worse than a Stormtrooper in Star Wars and enemies always make their saves against them. One gets to feel the hero while the other wonders why they even bothered to show up at the table.
When I started playing AD&D we did roll 3d6 in order and based our character on what they qualified for. It may have not been the default method, but the group I joined had played Basic before i joined, so probably a leftover from then. It was just the way it was and we accepted that.
My current character (I’ve played for several years and just hit level 16) we did roll for stats. I did ok but do have a 4 CHA. And I’m fine with that.
But there is a possibility of drastically different stats between players and it isn’t always easy to “handle it on the back end”. Especially for new players and DMs
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I really encourage everyone to try the option I explained above. This is the first time our DM has let us use it and all 6 of us "love" our characters. I'm looking forward to being reeeally strong, not just for fights, because we have 1 combat per game. I'm also looking forward to having a very low CHA and INT (6 each) purely for "roleplaying" and yes, I will fail lost of saves; more fun "roleplaying"!
Oh yeah, 4D6 IS awful!!! ;)
I second that.
I mean even though in 5e, character generation is not a thing, 5e characters tend too be too powerful for the core mechanic and lower stats actually make things like CR rating math and equipment (magical and mundane) work.
Its good for narrative direction as well.