I could go on, but the point has been made beautifully, and finally, by all these power-gamers. The reason people want to use the 4d6 system is to get better stats than the standard array or the 27 point buy. There is no other reason. And if they can't get their way, the idea is to wreck the game for everyone else.
This doesn't make sense. The 4d6 system existed in AD&D. There was no standard array or point buy system back then.
The game wasn't wrecked.
We still use the 4d6 system for one campaign and standard array for another. That's not affecting your game at all, is it?
And for the record, the only legit system is 3d6 in order. The entire idea of picking which stat to apply the numbers to is wrecking the game for everyone else :D
You are 100% correct about there being no standard array or point buy in AD&D. There were also some incredibly arbitrary rolls dealing with strengths over 18 as well, that no one complains are gone. Some legacy mechanics have been removed, for the better. 4d6 is one that should be removed. And yeah, the 3d6 system, take them in order, would be a hoot to play. Players would then actually have to PLAY the char, perhaps a precise RP lane of char. It would be for a table of experienced and skilled players looking for a challenge. But some people, many people, don't have the skills or the willingness to do such a thing.
I think this thread has a needlessly confrontational tone, if you start off a thread as basically a call-out tovvards people you disagree vvith, obviously you'll get nothing but hostile responses from those people... Eventually just devolving into arguments.
Anyvvay.. I think this vvhole business is a result of having ASIs and Feats tied together into the same mechanic. I believe Yurei already sort of made the point, but taking attribute increases instead of an interesting feat is super boring.. So I think a lot of people roll dice hoping for that one key stat to be very high so that they can have more fun customizing their character through feats, instead of taking boring ASIs.. Most classes get so fevv that it can be months and months before you ever get to pick a feat.
I'm very much of tvvo minds vvhen it comes to rolling.. I honestly don't like hovv big of a povver gap it can create betvveen the players, but on the other hand.. I personally love to get a high dex or something so I have the freedom to use feats instead.
If the tvvo vveere split into feat levels and ASI levels, I think I'd never roll for attributes.
No problem. You want variation, then roll 4d6 and then remove the HIGHEST. That will give you the precise same amount of customizing, RP, or whatever you want as the method you support.
So it's an either/or thing now?
There all kinds of people who tell me about how 4d6 allows for all kinds of variation and customizing options and RP opportunities compared to the fair and balanced methods of creating a char. Those same people grow very quiet when I suggest that the 4d6 method, but removing the highest, provides them all things that 4d6 remove the lowest does.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this thread has a needlessly confrontational tone, if you start off a thread as basically a call-out tovvards people you disagree vvith, obviously you'll get nothing but hostile responses from those people... Eventually just devolving into arguments.
Anyvvay.. I think this vvhole business is a result of having ASIs and Feats tied together into the same mechanic. I believe Yurei already sort of made the point, but taking attribute increases instead of an interesting feat is super boring.. So I think a lot of people roll dice hoping for that one key stat to be very high so that they can have more fun customizing their character through feats, instead of taking boring ASIs.. Most classes get so fevv that it can be months and months before you ever get to pick a feat.
I'm very much of tvvo minds vvhen it comes to rolling.. I honestly don't like hovv big of a povver gap it can create betvveen the players, but on the other hand.. I personally love to get a high dex or something so I have the freedom to use feats instead.
If the tvvo vveere split into feat levels and ASI levels, I think I'd never roll for attributes.
No problem. You want variation, then roll 4d6 and then remove the HIGHEST. That will give you the precise same amount of customizing, RP, or whatever you want as the method you support.
So it's an either/or thing now?
There all kinds of people who tell me about how 4d6 allows for all kinds of variation and customizing options and RP opportunities compared to the fair and balanced methods of creating a char. Those same people grow very quiet when I suggest that the 4d6 method, but removing the highest, provides them all things that 4d6 remove the lowest does.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
Here's an example of 4d6 drop highest stats: 76135714. The 16 was amazingly lucky.
I think this thread has a needlessly confrontational tone, if you start off a thread as basically a call-out tovvards people you disagree vvith, obviously you'll get nothing but hostile responses from those people... Eventually just devolving into arguments.
Anyvvay.. I think this vvhole business is a result of having ASIs and Feats tied together into the same mechanic. I believe Yurei already sort of made the point, but taking attribute increases instead of an interesting feat is super boring.. So I think a lot of people roll dice hoping for that one key stat to be very high so that they can have more fun customizing their character through feats, instead of taking boring ASIs.. Most classes get so fevv that it can be months and months before you ever get to pick a feat.
I'm very much of tvvo minds vvhen it comes to rolling.. I honestly don't like hovv big of a povver gap it can create betvveen the players, but on the other hand.. I personally love to get a high dex or something so I have the freedom to use feats instead.
If the tvvo vveere split into feat levels and ASI levels, I think I'd never roll for attributes.
No problem. You want variation, then roll 4d6 and then remove the HIGHEST. That will give you the precise same amount of customizing, RP, or whatever you want as the method you support.
So it's an either/or thing now?
There all kinds of people who tell me about how 4d6 allows for all kinds of variation and customizing options and RP opportunities compared to the fair and balanced methods of creating a char. Those same people grow very quiet when I suggest that the 4d6 method, but removing the highest, provides them all things that 4d6 remove the lowest does.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
That is what the standard array and point buy are for. They give you both. If the game is all about variation/customization/RP, as many many tell me, the overall value of the starting stats should be irrelevant. But as soon as we start getting into the conversation about "good stats", then the 4d6 system is shown for what it really is.
To be totally fair, I would have not nearly the issue with the 4d6 method if the players all agreed to roll the set 6 abilities, just once, in front of the entire table, and live with the results. But we both know that is seldom the case. And it still leaves the issue of some lucky player starting with 77 points overall, and someone else with 66. There are limits to RP being the be all, end all. As a DM, I am well aware of how much of a pain it is to design encounters that are fair to both ends of that spectrum.
I think this thread has a needlessly confrontational tone, if you start off a thread as basically a call-out tovvards people you disagree vvith, obviously you'll get nothing but hostile responses from those people... Eventually just devolving into arguments.
Anyvvay.. I think this vvhole business is a result of having ASIs and Feats tied together into the same mechanic. I believe Yurei already sort of made the point, but taking attribute increases instead of an interesting feat is super boring.. So I think a lot of people roll dice hoping for that one key stat to be very high so that they can have more fun customizing their character through feats, instead of taking boring ASIs.. Most classes get so fevv that it can be months and months before you ever get to pick a feat.
I'm very much of tvvo minds vvhen it comes to rolling.. I honestly don't like hovv big of a povver gap it can create betvveen the players, but on the other hand.. I personally love to get a high dex or something so I have the freedom to use feats instead.
If the tvvo vveere split into feat levels and ASI levels, I think I'd never roll for attributes.
No problem. You want variation, then roll 4d6 and then remove the HIGHEST. That will give you the precise same amount of customizing, RP, or whatever you want as the method you support.
So it's an either/or thing now?
There all kinds of people who tell me about how 4d6 allows for all kinds of variation and customizing options and RP opportunities compared to the fair and balanced methods of creating a char. Those same people grow very quiet when I suggest that the 4d6 method, but removing the highest, provides them all things that 4d6 remove the lowest does.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
That is what the standard array and point buy are for. They give you both. If the game is all about variation/customization/RP, as many many tell me, the overall value of the starting stats should be irrelevant. But as soon as we start getting into the conversation about "good stats", then the 4d6 system is shown for what it really is.
To be totally fair, I would have not nearly the issue with the 4d6 method if the players all agreed to roll the set 6 abilities, just once, in front of the entire table, and live with the results. But we both know that is seldom the case. And it still leaves the issue of some lucky player starting with 77 points overall, and someone else with 66. There are limits to RP being the be all, end all. As a DM, I am well aware of how much of a pain it is to design encounters that are fair to both ends of that spectrum.
DMs can do whatever they want. If that's 4d6 drop lowest with some added insurance against bad luck, that's fine. If it's the standard array, that's fine too. I like using a slightly improved array myself. I don't think all that many told you the game is all about variation/customization/RP, most people I know value both good stats and varied characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I could go on, but the point has been made beautifully, and finally, by all these power-gamers. The reason people want to use the 4d6 system is to get better stats than the standard array or the 27 point buy. There is no other reason. And if they can't get their way, the idea is to wreck the game for everyone else.
This doesn't make sense. The 4d6 system existed in AD&D. There was no standard array or point buy system back then.
The game wasn't wrecked.
We still use the 4d6 system for one campaign and standard array for another. That's not affecting your game at all, is it?
And for the record, the only legit system is 3d6 in order. The entire idea of picking which stat to apply the numbers to is wrecking the game for everyone else :D
You are 100% correct about there being no standard array or point buy in AD&D. There were also some incredibly arbitrary rolls dealing with strengths over 18 as well, that no one complains are gone. Some legacy mechanics have been removed, for the better. 4d6 is one that should be removed.
So don't play with it. Problem solved. Why do you even care about the way players in game you're not participating in generate their ability scores?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think this thread has a needlessly confrontational tone, if you start off a thread as basically a call-out tovvards people you disagree vvith, obviously you'll get nothing but hostile responses from those people... Eventually just devolving into arguments.
Anyvvay.. I think this vvhole business is a result of having ASIs and Feats tied together into the same mechanic. I believe Yurei already sort of made the point, but taking attribute increases instead of an interesting feat is super boring.. So I think a lot of people roll dice hoping for that one key stat to be very high so that they can have more fun customizing their character through feats, instead of taking boring ASIs.. Most classes get so fevv that it can be months and months before you ever get to pick a feat.
I'm very much of tvvo minds vvhen it comes to rolling.. I honestly don't like hovv big of a povver gap it can create betvveen the players, but on the other hand.. I personally love to get a high dex or something so I have the freedom to use feats instead.
If the tvvo vveere split into feat levels and ASI levels, I think I'd never roll for attributes.
No problem. You want variation, then roll 4d6 and then remove the HIGHEST. That will give you the precise same amount of customizing, RP, or whatever you want as the method you support.
So it's an either/or thing now?
There all kinds of people who tell me about how 4d6 allows for all kinds of variation and customizing options and RP opportunities compared to the fair and balanced methods of creating a char. Those same people grow very quiet when I suggest that the 4d6 method, but removing the highest, provides them all things that 4d6 remove the lowest does.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
That is what the standard array and point buy are for. They give you both. If the game is all about variation/customization/RP, as many many tell me, the overall value of the starting stats should be irrelevant. But as soon as we start getting into the conversation about "good stats", then the 4d6 system is shown for what it really is.
To be totally fair, I would have not nearly the issue with the 4d6 method if the players all agreed to roll the set 6 abilities, just once, in front of the entire table, and live with the results. But we both know that is seldom the case. And it still leaves the issue of some lucky player starting with 77 points overall, and someone else with 66. There are limits to RP being the be all, end all. As a DM, I am well aware of how much of a pain it is to design encounters that are fair to both ends of that spectrum.
So don't play with those people. Problem solved.
Or as a DM, make it so that everyone rolls and then the group decides which array of roll numbers the group gets to use. That way everyone is on the same playing field.
In the end, it doesn't matter. D&D is all about enjoyment, and if the group is a power gaming group? You know what they're still going to do at the end of the session?
It would be for a table of experienced and skilled players looking for a challenge. But some people, many people, don't have the skills or the willingness to do such a thing.
The thing that ruins the game most often is somebody telling you how to run your game.
In over 40 years of play, I've run into dozens of people who couldn't last in a group for more than single session because they just couldn't resist pointing out to the other players how stupid they were or that they didn't know how to play. Then they would be surprised when they weren't invited back.
I agree that there is a tendacy with standard array to put theabilities in the same places, for a given buid. For example a cleric in a sub-class without heavy armor will usually have a +3 to widsom and +2 to Dex and Con. However when one person in the party rolled 14,1311,9,9,4 and one rolled 18,17,16,14,14,12 it iahard to balance encounteres and the low rolling player can feel of little ue to the group. In character, the PCs would be very likely to persuide the weak character to stay where it is safe while they go out and kill the monster to protect the town.
Allowing low rolls to roll again can lead to ability inflation but can still lead to some players being condsiderably more powerful thatn others which might not be fun for everyone
A way round this is to have a "non standard array" the DM can decide what this is, or there can be a rolls for it. There are variations like 33 point buy (with 12 points ofr a 16) or everyone rolls but you can use another payers roll for your character.
For example having everyone use 18, 13, 12, 11, 10, 6 means they don't need ot use "boring" ASIs to max out their primary stat but have to choose between feats, improving secondary stats improve a stat that can be a liability (having an intelligence wisdom or charisma of 6 might be low enough to get you into fights where they should not normally happen, a strength of 6 might mean you can ot carry all the equipment you want but an 8 is high enough not to do something really silly)
A starting array of 18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10 might mean no-oone needs to take "boring ASIs" allowing characters to get lots of interesting feats, and because everyone has it the party is balanced, it dies however require an experianced DM to balance encounters
Those are hardly unusable stats. Racial bonuses can get you to a +3 and +2 on your top two stats. It's hard to do much better than that with a standard array. Plenty of classes only have two critical stats. A 4 is likely to make you really vulnerable on a few saves, but most of the time you just avoid making checks using that ability.
Besides, it's a team game. Even with a +0 in every ability, you could still be a net positive contribution to your party.
I haven't checked for 5E, but in 3.5 edition the rules for rolling for stats specified that you needed to meet certain minimums in terms of your highest ability score and the total of all your ability scores. If you didn't meet either of those thresholds you ere supposed to roll again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sure, there is the element of gamble with rolling and generally people like to have higher stats but I feel like most people who roll do so because they are perfectly fine with getting a 6-7 in one score if they can get a 16-17 in other - so in other words, something that 8-15 point buy does not allow.
The character in the OP has a total modifier of ALL stats -2. That's ridiculous end of the spectrum, that is 7 less than standard array. Being unhappy with that result does not immediately brand you as a power gamer. If one can say that someone unhappy with abysmal stats is automatically a power gamer then one can also say, alternatively, that a DM who forces a player to play with such stats is a vindictive d**k who gets off on seeing his players being miserable because "consequences".
It would be interesting to just allow for something like this - standard array has a total modifier of +5. Allow me to arrange my stats in any way I like ranging from 6-18 provided the total sum is +5.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
Yes but the importance of stats in that edition of D&D was a bit different then, no?
And you can use that argument to every part of mechanics that has changed. I can totally see a hardcore 2nd edition enthusiast come here and laugh at all those spoiled brats who don't enjoy save-or-die spells. "Back in my times we were HARDCORE" and all that. "We even had our characters insta die when they put their hands in a trap!"
I don't feel like you addressed the point I vvas making? I vvasn't calling for variation...
You can just as easily take a Feat like Chef to move your Wis to 12 as you can to take the same Feat to move your Wis to 16. It is neither no more "boring" nor no less "boring" to take a feat at any given time. Or are you saying it is "boring" to have non-20's in stats?
What I was trying to communicate is that it is natural for players to want to progress their primary stat to be more effective, just as it's natural for a wizard to put their highest stat in intelligence. So when reaching an ASI, you'll want to further that stat. However, it is often a far more interesting and mechanically fun choice to pick a perk, because it offers more options and you feel like you're personalising your character beyond the often rather linear progression that is most 5e classes. When you role high, it leaves you the freedom of picking one of these feats without feeling the need to invest the ASI in an attribute.
It is not "boring" to have non-20's in stats, I don't know where you got that idea from.. But it can be a frustration that you cannot progress your important primary stat aswell taking a more interesting feat, since ASI's are so few and far between in 5e.
As I said in my original post, I would personally have prefered if feats and ASI's didn't compete with eachother, and then everyone using a standard array. I think it would be a much better system.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
Yes but the importance of stats in that edition of D&D was a bit different then, no?
And you can use that argument to every part of mechanics that has changed. I can totally see a hardcore 2nd edition enthusiast come here and laugh at all those spoiled brats who don't enjoy save-or-die spells. "Back in my times we were HARDCORE" and all that.
No, you're totally right! Save-or-die is dumb. Fun, but dumb. The Red Box argument isn't an argument against 4d6 or 5e combat, which are definitely better systems, it's just my frustration with the expectations people have. I still feel that expecting your hero to have power far beyond that of a normal individual (average 10) isn't required to have a good time or a cool character. Plus, I still think if you're gonna go random, you gotta accept random.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
Yes but the importance of stats in that edition of D&D was a bit different then, no?
And you can use that argument to every part of mechanics that has changed. I can totally see a hardcore 2nd edition enthusiast come here and laugh at all those spoiled brats who don't enjoy save-or-die spells. "Back in my times we were HARDCORE" and all that.
No, you're totally right! Save-or-die is dumb. Fun, but dumb. The Red Box argument isn't an argument against 4d6 or 5e combat, which are definitely better systems, it's just my frustration with the expectations people have. I still feel that expecting your hero to have power far beyond that of a normal individual (average 10) isn't required to have a good time or a cool character. Plus, I still think if you're gonna go random, you gotta accept random.
Ultimately it's up to the table. It's easy to deal with absolutes but when it happens to you (on both sides of the table) then it becomes real.
I DM and I gave my players the choice to roll or point buy for my campaign but if one of my players rolled a total -2 for all stats, I'd probably let them use point buy instead and treat it as a lesson. Sure, consequences to the choices are important but not as important as having the peace of mind of knowing that your player is not miserable every time they fail at...well, basically everything.
But my players are relatively new - they don't have decades of experience and dozens of characters they already created so now they are fine with experimenting. If they want their first ever character created to feel awesome, it will feel awesome.
It's like your SAW example - "gory" is not a zero-one sum choice. Something isn't either gory or not gory at all. You can go to the movie expecting a certain level of acceptable gore and still be taken aback by what you saw.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
Yes but the importance of stats in that edition of D&D was a bit different then, no?
And you can use that argument to every part of mechanics that has changed. I can totally see a hardcore 2nd edition enthusiast come here and laugh at all those spoiled brats who don't enjoy save-or-die spells. "Back in my times we were HARDCORE" and all that.
No, you're totally right! Save-or-die is dumb. Fun, but dumb. The Red Box argument isn't an argument against 4d6 or 5e combat, which are definitely better systems, it's just my frustration with the expectations people have. I still feel that expecting your hero to have power far beyond that of a normal individual (average 10) isn't required to have a good time or a cool character. Plus, I still think if you're gonna go random, you gotta accept random.
Ultimately it's up to the table. It's easy to deal with absolutes but when it happens to you (on both sides of the table) then it becomes real.
I DM and I gave my players the choice to roll or point buy for my campaign but if one of my players rolled a total -2 for all stats, I'd probably let them use point buy instead and treat it as a lesson. Sure, consequences to the choices are important but not as important as having the peace of mind of knowing that your player is not miserable every time they fail at...well, basically everything.
But my players are relatively new - they don't have decades of experience and dozens of characters they already created so now they are fine with experimenting. If they want their first ever character created to feel awesome, it will feel awesome.
It's like your SAW example - "gory" is not a zero-one sum choice. Something isn't either gory or not gory at all. You can go to the movie expecting a certain level of acceptable gore and still be taken aback by what you saw.
Fair enough. It's not how I'd run my game, and if I rolled the stats in the OP I'd actually be really excited to give it a shot (that would make for some fun roleplaying)! But I could see having a reasonable cutoff of how low you can roll before you get to redo (say, total of 63 or lower) as long as you established it beforehand.
I Personally like 4d6 Drop Lowest. For example, I play a Cleric in one of my campaigns with Four Strength, but everything else is really decent. Probably wasn't the wisest choice since I find myself being restrained a lot, but it's still fun to just cause chaos by being weak and allowing another party member to help out instead. :]
Because honestly, who really cares about low rolls, IMO they just make the game more fun.
It would be for a table of experienced and skilled players looking for a challenge. But some people, many people, don't have the skills or the willingness to do such a thing.
The thing that ruins the game most often is somebody telling you how to run your game.
In over 40 years of play, I've run into dozens of people who couldn't last in a group for more than single session because they just couldn't resist pointing out to the other players how stupid they were or that they didn't know how to play. Then they would be surprised when they weren't invited back.
Shrug...I have played enough D&D to know what unskilled players can and cannot do. And given the responses from this thread, I KNOW most would never ever consider playing 3d6, stats are non-moveable. I would love to do it with the right group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are 100% correct about there being no standard array or point buy in AD&D. There were also some incredibly arbitrary rolls dealing with strengths over 18 as well, that no one complains are gone. Some legacy mechanics have been removed, for the better. 4d6 is one that should be removed. And yeah, the 3d6 system, take them in order, would be a hoot to play. Players would then actually have to PLAY the char, perhaps a precise RP lane of char. It would be for a table of experienced and skilled players looking for a challenge. But some people, many people, don't have the skills or the willingness to do such a thing.
4d6 drops highest clearly doesn't provide stat arrays that are on average as good as 4d6 drops lowest does. So is it either variation/customization/RP or good stats? Or can we ask for both?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Here's an example of 4d6 drop highest stats: 7 6 13 5 7 14. The 16 was amazingly lucky.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
That is what the standard array and point buy are for. They give you both. If the game is all about variation/customization/RP, as many many tell me, the overall value of the starting stats should be irrelevant. But as soon as we start getting into the conversation about "good stats", then the 4d6 system is shown for what it really is.
To be totally fair, I would have not nearly the issue with the 4d6 method if the players all agreed to roll the set 6 abilities, just once, in front of the entire table, and live with the results. But we both know that is seldom the case. And it still leaves the issue of some lucky player starting with 77 points overall, and someone else with 66. There are limits to RP being the be all, end all. As a DM, I am well aware of how much of a pain it is to design encounters that are fair to both ends of that spectrum.
DMs can do whatever they want. If that's 4d6 drop lowest with some added insurance against bad luck, that's fine. If it's the standard array, that's fine too. I like using a slightly improved array myself. I don't think all that many told you the game is all about variation/customization/RP, most people I know value both good stats and varied characters.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So don't play with it. Problem solved. Why do you even care about the way players in game you're not participating in generate their ability scores?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So don't play with those people. Problem solved.
Or as a DM, make it so that everyone rolls and then the group decides which array of roll numbers the group gets to use. That way everyone is on the same playing field.
In the end, it doesn't matter. D&D is all about enjoyment, and if the group is a power gaming group? You know what they're still going to do at the end of the session?
Have fun.
That's what D&D is about.
The thing that ruins the game most often is somebody telling you how to run your game.
In over 40 years of play, I've run into dozens of people who couldn't last in a group for more than single session because they just couldn't resist pointing out to the other players how stupid they were or that they didn't know how to play. Then they would be surprised when they weren't invited back.
I agree that there is a tendacy with standard array to put theabilities in the same places, for a given buid. For example a cleric in a sub-class without heavy armor will usually have a +3 to widsom and +2 to Dex and Con. However when one person in the party rolled 14,1311,9,9,4 and one rolled 18,17,16,14,14,12 it iahard to balance encounteres and the low rolling player can feel of little ue to the group. In character, the PCs would be very likely to persuide the weak character to stay where it is safe while they go out and kill the monster to protect the town.
Allowing low rolls to roll again can lead to ability inflation but can still lead to some players being condsiderably more powerful thatn others which might not be fun for everyone
A way round this is to have a "non standard array" the DM can decide what this is, or there can be a rolls for it. There are variations like 33 point buy (with 12 points ofr a 16) or everyone rolls but you can use another payers roll for your character.
For example having everyone use 18, 13, 12, 11, 10, 6 means they don't need ot use "boring" ASIs to max out their primary stat but have to choose between feats, improving secondary stats improve a stat that can be a liability (having an intelligence wisdom or charisma of 6 might be low enough to get you into fights where they should not normally happen, a strength of 6 might mean you can ot carry all the equipment you want but an 8 is high enough not to do something really silly)
A starting array of 18, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10 might mean no-oone needs to take "boring ASIs" allowing characters to get lots of interesting feats, and because everyone has it the party is balanced, it dies however require an experianced DM to balance encounters
Those are hardly unusable stats. Racial bonuses can get you to a +3 and +2 on your top two stats. It's hard to do much better than that with a standard array. Plenty of classes only have two critical stats. A 4 is likely to make you really vulnerable on a few saves, but most of the time you just avoid making checks using that ability.
Besides, it's a team game. Even with a +0 in every ability, you could still be a net positive contribution to your party.
I haven't checked for 5E, but in 3.5 edition the rules for rolling for stats specified that you needed to meet certain minimums in terms of your highest ability score and the total of all your ability scores. If you didn't meet either of those thresholds you ere supposed to roll again.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sure, there is the element of gamble with rolling and generally people like to have higher stats but I feel like most people who roll do so because they are perfectly fine with getting a 6-7 in one score if they can get a 16-17 in other - so in other words, something that 8-15 point buy does not allow.
The character in the OP has a total modifier of ALL stats -2. That's ridiculous end of the spectrum, that is 7 less than standard array. Being unhappy with that result does not immediately brand you as a power gamer. If one can say that someone unhappy with abysmal stats is automatically a power gamer then one can also say, alternatively, that a DM who forces a player to play with such stats is a vindictive d**k who gets off on seeing his players being miserable because "consequences".
It would be interesting to just allow for something like this - standard array has a total modifier of +5. Allow me to arrange my stats in any way I like ranging from 6-18 provided the total sum is +5.
When I was a kid, all I had was my mom's old Red Box set, so I rolled 3d6 in order and had a ton of fun! The average character was lucky to get a +2 in their primary stat, almost always had an 8 or lower, and had +0 in most scores. I'm sorry, but to me anyone who can't deal with poor stat rolls just comes across as a spoiled brat. 5e is forgiving (in combat too, you won't suffer much in practice for having a few low stats).
I for one enjoy low-stat, Frodo Baggins characters. Plus, if you don't get bad rolls sometimes, what even is the point in rolling? Maybe I come across as a jerk, but I think rolling dice and complaining when the results are random is like watching a Saw movie and complaining that it's graphically gory.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Yes but the importance of stats in that edition of D&D was a bit different then, no?
And you can use that argument to every part of mechanics that has changed. I can totally see a hardcore 2nd edition enthusiast come here and laugh at all those spoiled brats who don't enjoy save-or-die spells. "Back in my times we were HARDCORE" and all that. "We even had our characters insta die when they put their hands in a trap!"
What I was trying to communicate is that it is natural for players to want to progress their primary stat to be more effective, just as it's natural for a wizard to put their highest stat in intelligence. So when reaching an ASI, you'll want to further that stat. However, it is often a far more interesting and mechanically fun choice to pick a perk, because it offers more options and you feel like you're personalising your character beyond the often rather linear progression that is most 5e classes. When you role high, it leaves you the freedom of picking one of these feats without feeling the need to invest the ASI in an attribute.
It is not "boring" to have non-20's in stats, I don't know where you got that idea from.. But it can be a frustration that you cannot progress your important primary stat aswell taking a more interesting feat, since ASI's are so few and far between in 5e.
As I said in my original post, I would personally have prefered if feats and ASI's didn't compete with eachother, and then everyone using a standard array. I think it would be a much better system.
No, you're totally right! Save-or-die is dumb. Fun, but dumb. The Red Box argument isn't an argument against 4d6 or 5e combat, which are definitely better systems, it's just my frustration with the expectations people have. I still feel that expecting your hero to have power far beyond that of a normal individual (average 10) isn't required to have a good time or a cool character. Plus, I still think if you're gonna go random, you gotta accept random.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Ultimately it's up to the table. It's easy to deal with absolutes but when it happens to you (on both sides of the table) then it becomes real.
I DM and I gave my players the choice to roll or point buy for my campaign but if one of my players rolled a total -2 for all stats, I'd probably let them use point buy instead and treat it as a lesson. Sure, consequences to the choices are important but not as important as having the peace of mind of knowing that your player is not miserable every time they fail at...well, basically everything.
But my players are relatively new - they don't have decades of experience and dozens of characters they already created so now they are fine with experimenting. If they want their first ever character created to feel awesome, it will feel awesome.
It's like your SAW example - "gory" is not a zero-one sum choice. Something isn't either gory or not gory at all. You can go to the movie expecting a certain level of acceptable gore and still be taken aback by what you saw.
Fair enough. It's not how I'd run my game, and if I rolled the stats in the OP I'd actually be really excited to give it a shot (that would make for some fun roleplaying)! But I could see having a reasonable cutoff of how low you can roll before you get to redo (say, total of 63 or lower) as long as you established it beforehand.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I Personally like 4d6 Drop Lowest. For example, I play a Cleric in one of my campaigns with Four Strength, but everything else is really decent. Probably wasn't the wisest choice since I find myself being restrained a lot, but it's still fun to just cause chaos by being weak and allowing another party member to help out instead. :]
Because honestly, who really cares about low rolls, IMO they just make the game more fun.
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
Shrug...I have played enough D&D to know what unskilled players can and cannot do. And given the responses from this thread, I KNOW most would never ever consider playing 3d6, stats are non-moveable. I would love to do it with the right group.