I've always wondered what a modified Dark Sun rolling method would be like. From what I've read, the Dark Sun setting in 2E had a dice rolling method of 4d4 + 4. That's obviously on the very strong side (you have a minimum score of 4, and odds are you're going to get a 14 or higher for your stats), so I was wondering what it would be like as a 4d4 + 2 (min 6, max 18). You'd obviously be more likely to be higher while still having a chance of lower than average stats.
Just went back to the source (players handbook) to review for my own benefit, and lists the character creation in 3 steps. Step 1 - choose race, Step 2 - choose class, Step 3 - roll stats and assign numbers. So while I'd be happy to just go along with the 5 Con barbarian (poor fella is just so terminally ill, wants just one 'last' adventure) and make my own strategic choices on what to do and when, could be fun, I suppose. Or, dump the intelligence instead for an archetypal dummy? Either way, I think the official 4d6, exclude lowest, is a satisfactory stat generator in comparison to other rolled preferences mentioned. Although, in my opinion, standard array keeps things nice, tidy, generally even for everyone involved.
My point is you have two characters with 15 points different in their ability stats....
Even if you put your best stats in the right order for the barbarian these other characters will be better at hitting things compared to them simply due to the stat differences. And this is across the board they are worse in everything.
For me the worst part about rolling is this...you have a decent chance to have two characters with wildly different statblocks. The way most people "fix" this is to have a way to mitigate low scores. (Reroll if less than 65)
If you are mitigating low scores with rolls you are pretty much ensuring they will have at least the same or better as point buy.....so why not just do point buy and be done with it?
If you want good scores at the start give them more points to buy and allow them to buy up to a 16.
Every single one of these posts merely confirms my original post. A 27 point buy, coupled with the species specific boosts, guarantee a pair of 16's, or an 16 and 17, if the player so desires. That is plenty good enough for any low level character to excel at its job in the game. But for a power-gamer, who wants to triple class and wants to take Feats instead of ability bumps, no, those stats are not nearly good enough.
"My char needs Polearm Mastery, Sentinel, GWM, and 20's in Str AND Con AND Wis in order for me to express my uniqueness as a real world human being, and this 27 point buy or SA is far too restrictive to allow my creativity to soar. I must be able to roll 4d6 and then continue rolling until I get the set that allows me to do all this."
My point is you have two characters with 15 points different in their ability stats....
Even if you put your best stats in the right order for the barbarian these other characters will be better at hitting things compared to them simply due to the stat differences. And this is across the board they are worse in everything.
For me the worst part about rolling is this...you have a decent chance to have two characters with wildly different statblocks. The way most people "fix" this is to have a way to mitigate low scores. (Reroll if less than 65)
If you are mitigating low scores with rolls you are pretty much ensuring they will have at least the same or better as point buy.....so why not just do point buy and be done with it?
If you want good scores at the start give them more points to buy and allow them to buy up to a 16.
Different statblocks aren't necessarily a problem. They're certainly not for me if I'm DMing, at any rate. Envy among players could be an issue, sure - that's for the group to deal with.
Everything else is really a matter of preference. Rolling is random, whether that's mitigated in some way or not and whether you get to arrange the stats or roll in order. Aside from allowing 18s, rolling also allows 3s (if anything, those 3s would be what I'd mitigate myself). There is a potential for extremes in either direction, not just high results. Some groups just like that. And if you're going to houserule pointbuy, why not houserule 4d6?
For groups where envy could be a problem, I like offering a choice between an 8-10-11-13-14-17 array and 4d6 drop lowest, with the option to pick the standard array if the rolls are too low. I've used just that improved array as well, and the regular options. Of the non-random methods I like point-buy best, though it tends to result in fairly predictable arrays.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't have a problem with 4d6 method resulting in arrays stronger than point buy. My problem (as already mentioned at length by others) is the large spread that can occur between characters using this method. A character that rolls really well will get to pick up an extra feat or two while the character that rolled very poorly has to spend its first few ASIs playing catch-up with even its primary two or three stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My point is you have two characters with 15 points different in their ability stats....
Even if you put your best stats in the right order for the barbarian these other characters will be better at hitting things compared to them simply due to the stat differences. And this is across the board they are worse in everything.
For me the worst part about rolling is this...you have a decent chance to have two characters with wildly different statblocks. The way most people "fix" this is to have a way to mitigate low scores. (Reroll if less than 65)
If you are mitigating low scores with rolls you are pretty much ensuring they will have at least the same or better as point buy.....so why not just do point buy and be done with it?
If you want good scores at the start give them more points to buy and allow them to buy up to a 16.
Different statblocks aren't necessarily a problem. They're certainly not for me if I'm DMing, at any rate. Envy among players could be an issue, sure - that's for the group to deal with.
Everything else is really a matter of preference. Rolling is random, whether that's mitigated in some way or not and whether you get to arrange the stats or roll in order. Aside from allowing 18s, rolling also allows 3s (if anything, those 3s would be what I'd mitigate myself). There is a potential for extremes in either direction, not just high results. Some groups just like that. And if you're going to houserule pointbuy, why not houserule 4d6?
For groups where envy could be a problem, I like offering a choice between an 8-10-11-13-14-17 array and 4d6 drop lowest, with the option to pick the standard array if the rolls are too low. I've used just that improved array as well, and the regular options. Of the non-random methods I like point-buy best, though it tends to result in fairly predictable arrays.
It's just....why roll if you are going to get the same numbers? So you can potentially get an 18 is the answer....
I don't have a problem with 4d6 method resulting in arrays stronger than point buy. My problem (as already mentioned at length by others) is the large spread that can occur between characters using this method. A character that rolls really well will get to pick up an extra feat or two while the character that rolled very poorly has to spend its first few ASIs playing catch-up with even its primary two or three stats.
Or not, a 12 dex rogue can still be affective, even with taking some feats instead of ASIs Feats shouldn't be taken "because I'm maxed out."
The opinion that rolled stats getting wildly different leads to one person being able to powergame while the other plays catch up is silly. People are going to take feats if they want feats, not matter their current scores.
I don't have a problem with 4d6 method resulting in arrays stronger than point buy. My problem (as already mentioned at length by others) is the large spread that can occur between characters using this method. A character that rolls really well will get to pick up an extra feat or two while the character that rolled very poorly has to spend its first few ASIs playing catch-up with even its primary two or three stats.
Or not, a 12 dex rogue can still be affective, even with taking some feats instead of ASIs Feats shouldn't be taken "because I'm maxed out."
The opinion that rolled stats getting wildly different leads to one person being able to powergame while the other plays catch up is silly. People are going to take feats if they want feats, not matter their current scores.
No one would accept a 12 as being good enough for a primary stat. Heck, if you look at the Tips and Tactics threads, alot of times youll see people asking about taking an ASI or a feat, and if the score they are concerned about is 16 or lower, alot of the responses recommend the ASI. Sure, the difference between an 18 or a 20 may not be a big deal. Even a 16 would be fine. But if the primary stat for your class is a 12 or 14, that will probably be fine for the first tier of play, but once you start getting into higher tiers you will not be as effective against enemies with higher AC, higher HP, and higher save bonuses. So you have to start using your ASIs early (even in that first tier) to make sure your character is going to catch up. Not to mention that your primary ability score for a certain class will in some cases play into your abilities (this is especially true for Int with a Battle Smith Artificer).
My point is you have two characters with 15 points different in their ability stats....
Even if you put your best stats in the right order for the barbarian these other characters will be better at hitting things compared to them simply due to the stat differences. And this is across the board they are worse in everything.
For me the worst part about rolling is this...you have a decent chance to have two characters with wildly different statblocks. The way most people "fix" this is to have a way to mitigate low scores. (Reroll if less than 65)
If you are mitigating low scores with rolls you are pretty much ensuring they will have at least the same or better as point buy.....so why not just do point buy and be done with it?
If you want good scores at the start give them more points to buy and allow them to buy up to a 16.
Different statblocks aren't necessarily a problem. They're certainly not for me if I'm DMing, at any rate. Envy among players could be an issue, sure - that's for the group to deal with.
Everything else is really a matter of preference. Rolling is random, whether that's mitigated in some way or not and whether you get to arrange the stats or roll in order. Aside from allowing 18s, rolling also allows 3s (if anything, those 3s would be what I'd mitigate myself). There is a potential for extremes in either direction, not just high results. Some groups just like that. And if you're going to houserule pointbuy, why not houserule 4d6?
For groups where envy could be a problem, I like offering a choice between an 8-10-11-13-14-17 array and 4d6 drop lowest, with the option to pick the standard array if the rolls are too low. I've used just that improved array as well, and the regular options. Of the non-random methods I like point-buy best, though it tends to result in fairly predictable arrays.
It's just....why roll if you are going to get the same numbers? So you can potentially get an 18 is the answer....
Who says you're going to get the same numbers? Even with some sort of mitigation rules in place there's a pretty decent chance of two negative modifiers for instance. The negatives can also be much more pronounced than an 8 stat / -1 modifier.
Who says you're going to get the same numbers? Even with some sort of mitigation rules in place there's a pretty decent chance of two negative modifiers for instance. The negatives can also be much more pronounced than an 8 stat / -1 modifier.
A couple really good ones, a couple roughly comparable to a standard array and a couple a little bit below standard array, with none of them poor enough that I'd feel a need to offer a reroll or some other adjustment. That's a really nice result for illustration purposes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
62
67
66
80
71
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
It does not even address my second which is: Most people have a mitigation for low scores. If you roll below a 72 you can use point buy or the like.
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
62
67
66
80
71
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
Nobody disputes rolling can produce uneven parties. What I dispute is that this is a problem. A DM can nuke whoever they want regardless of stats anyway. A DM can favour challenges that play into the wheelhouse of characters with fewer strengths. Items can be provided to shore up egregious weaknesses. Tactics can be adjusted. I've never had any problems making every member of a party relevant regardless of disparate stats.
What these arrays also show is that rolling produces statlines that are both viable and significantly different from the standard array - which rebutts the "why roll if you are going to get the same numbers" argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
62
67
66
80
71
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
Nobody disputes rolling can produce uneven parties. What I dispute is that this is a problem. A DM can nuke whoever they want regardless of stats anyway. A DM can favour challenges that play into the wheelhouse of characters with fewer strengths. Items can be provided to shore up egregious weaknesses. Tactics can be adjusted. I've never had any problems making every member of a party relevant regardless of disparate stats.
What these arrays also show is that rolling produces statlines that are both viable and significantly different from the standard array - which rebutts the "why roll if you are going to get the same numbers" argument.
But why make it harder by having a party with such a drastic difference in ability scores? Its not making anything easier and pretty much only has the potential of creating problems...
I don't have a problem with 4d6 method resulting in arrays stronger than point buy. My problem (as already mentioned at length by others) is the large spread that can occur between characters using this method. A character that rolls really well will get to pick up an extra feat or two while the character that rolled very poorly has to spend its first few ASIs playing catch-up with even its primary two or three stats.
I know, it's by far the biggest drawback of the method. I wonder if the solution is not simply to have two standard arrays or maybe three, with the same point buy, but not infinite variety to discourage incredible optimisation, or maybe some very small variety like:
Choose your array, roll 6 dices and there you are.
Personally I like the idea of the party setting a "campaign array" where rolling the stats is split between members of the party (and DM if necessary). The downside is everyone has the exact same starting scores (which isnt a huge problem to me, since each party member will probably spread them differently, choose different races/lineages, and choose to apply ASIs differently anyway). The benefit is that all of the party still gets to roll and feel that they are influencing the characters and its a shared experience at the table. Plus no one has to worry about being significantly worse than another member of the party.
But it does lack some variety I admit.
Another idea that just popped up, what about a weird mix of point buy and rolling. Hear me out. Everyone rolls 3d6 for their scores (thus allowing for a variety of different values, but all of those values will on average be on the lower side since you dont get to drop any low ones) then from there they get a limited number of points to increase the score? Idk, Im sure there could be a fun middle ground reached that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
62
67
66
80
71
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
Nobody disputes rolling can produce uneven parties. What I dispute is that this is a problem. A DM can nuke whoever they want regardless of stats anyway. A DM can favour challenges that play into the wheelhouse of characters with fewer strengths. Items can be provided to shore up egregious weaknesses. Tactics can be adjusted. I've never had any problems making every member of a party relevant regardless of disparate stats.
What these arrays also show is that rolling produces statlines that are both viable and significantly different from the standard array - which rebutts the "why roll if you are going to get the same numbers" argument.
But why make it harder by having a party with such a drastic difference in ability scores? Its not making anything easier and pretty much only has the potential of creating problems...
The benefits are......lol randomz? Not sure...
It's not really harder. I take individual character qualities into account anyway, regardless of the method used to generate statlines.
As for 'lol randomz', just because you don't value something doesn't mean others can't like it. You do you, we do us, everybody wins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I saw a cool one in a Call of Cthulhu stream -- house rule, not standard from that game (I think). Because they were trying to do a long campaign and CoC can be rather deadly, for each stat they rolled, 2 people rolled dice -- the GM and the player. The player then got to pick whether to use the GM's roll or their roll. They ended up with some nice stats but not super-over-the-top. There were times when both the GM and the player rolled crap at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
62
67
66
80
71
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
Nobody disputes rolling can produce uneven parties. What I dispute is that this is a problem. A DM can nuke whoever they want regardless of stats anyway. A DM can favour challenges that play into the wheelhouse of characters with fewer strengths. Items can be provided to shore up egregious weaknesses. Tactics can be adjusted. I've never had any problems making every member of a party relevant regardless of disparate stats.
What these arrays also show is that rolling produces statlines that are both viable and significantly different from the standard array - which rebutts the "why roll if you are going to get the same numbers" argument.
But why make it harder by having a party with such a drastic difference in ability scores? Its not making anything easier and pretty much only has the potential of creating problems...
The benefits are......lol randomz? Not sure...
It's not really harder. I take individual character qualities into account anyway, regardless of the method used to generate statlines.
As for 'lol randomz', just because you don't value something doesn't mean others can't like it. You do you, we do us, everybody wins.
That is fair and I should do better about attempting to understand it probably.
It's just in my experience and the experience of a lot of my long time DM buddies (of which I am but a small fraction of time spend playing DnD Compared to them) we have never had great experiences with rolling for stats but our experiences are but a fraction of those of everyone.
I will likely not use it ever but I do like they have it as an option for people.
In general, the way to do 'balanced but random' is to have random allocation of a pool of points, though it tends to either require after the fact tweaks or messy die rolling. For example, using standard (27) point build:
Number stats from 1-6 (e.g. Str=1, Dex=2, Con=3, Int=4, Wis=5, Cha=6)
Roll 15d6. Allocate 2 points to each stat per die that comes up matching that stat. If more than 5 dice come up matching any one stat, reroll the extra dice.
Remove 1 point from 3 stats (usually to convert a 6, 8, or 10 to 5, 7, or 9)
This gives about a 33% chance that at least one stat is an 8, and 43% that at least one stat is a 15.
You can do the same with other numbers of points, or other point system. For example, you might have
You lay out small index cards with the 6 attribute names, STR, DEX, etc. Then you roll dice 1 at a time. You put the die on the card you want. So if you want, say, a high str, you can put your 6s and 5s on the STR card, and the 2s and 3s on the CHA card, or what have you. I can't remember how many dice they rolled... I am not sure if it was 24 total. But there was also a "dump" card where they could put some of the 1s. Eventually with too many you'd have to keep some, though. And of course as things progressed and you got near the end, you might be able to start dumping 2s and such. Not sure if they could move them about once they had placed them -- I think they could do a few but not all or most of them.
Wish I could remember where I saw it... It was kinda neat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've always wondered what a modified Dark Sun rolling method would be like. From what I've read, the Dark Sun setting in 2E had a dice rolling method of 4d4 + 4. That's obviously on the very strong side (you have a minimum score of 4, and odds are you're going to get a 14 or higher for your stats), so I was wondering what it would be like as a 4d4 + 2 (min 6, max 18). You'd obviously be more likely to be higher while still having a chance of lower than average stats.
Thoughts?
Just went back to the source (players handbook) to review for my own benefit, and lists the character creation in 3 steps. Step 1 - choose race, Step 2 - choose class, Step 3 - roll stats and assign numbers. So while I'd be happy to just go along with the 5 Con barbarian (poor fella is just so terminally ill, wants just one 'last' adventure) and make my own strategic choices on what to do and when, could be fun, I suppose. Or, dump the intelligence instead for an archetypal dummy? Either way, I think the official 4d6, exclude lowest, is a satisfactory stat generator in comparison to other rolled preferences mentioned. Although, in my opinion, standard array keeps things nice, tidy, generally even for everyone involved.
Boldly go
Every single one of these posts merely confirms my original post. A 27 point buy, coupled with the species specific boosts, guarantee a pair of 16's, or an 16 and 17, if the player so desires. That is plenty good enough for any low level character to excel at its job in the game. But for a power-gamer, who wants to triple class and wants to take Feats instead of ability bumps, no, those stats are not nearly good enough.
"My char needs Polearm Mastery, Sentinel, GWM, and 20's in Str AND Con AND Wis in order for me to express my uniqueness as a real world human being, and this 27 point buy or SA is far too restrictive to allow my creativity to soar. I must be able to roll 4d6 and then continue rolling until I get the set that allows me to do all this."
Different statblocks aren't necessarily a problem. They're certainly not for me if I'm DMing, at any rate. Envy among players could be an issue, sure - that's for the group to deal with.
Everything else is really a matter of preference. Rolling is random, whether that's mitigated in some way or not and whether you get to arrange the stats or roll in order. Aside from allowing 18s, rolling also allows 3s (if anything, those 3s would be what I'd mitigate myself). There is a potential for extremes in either direction, not just high results. Some groups just like that. And if you're going to houserule pointbuy, why not houserule 4d6?
For groups where envy could be a problem, I like offering a choice between an 8-10-11-13-14-17 array and 4d6 drop lowest, with the option to pick the standard array if the rolls are too low. I've used just that improved array as well, and the regular options. Of the non-random methods I like point-buy best, though it tends to result in fairly predictable arrays.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't have a problem with 4d6 method resulting in arrays stronger than point buy. My problem (as already mentioned at length by others) is the large spread that can occur between characters using this method. A character that rolls really well will get to pick up an extra feat or two while the character that rolled very poorly has to spend its first few ASIs playing catch-up with even its primary two or three stats.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's just....why roll if you are going to get the same numbers? So you can potentially get an 18 is the answer....
Or not, a 12 dex rogue can still be affective, even with taking some feats instead of ASIs Feats shouldn't be taken "because I'm maxed out."
The opinion that rolled stats getting wildly different leads to one person being able to powergame while the other plays catch up is silly. People are going to take feats if they want feats, not matter their current scores.
I agree sometimes it works out better if you go for the Feat rather than the characteristic boost.
How many times have I heard about the Lucky Feat?!
No one would accept a 12 as being good enough for a primary stat. Heck, if you look at the Tips and Tactics threads, alot of times youll see people asking about taking an ASI or a feat, and if the score they are concerned about is 16 or lower, alot of the responses recommend the ASI. Sure, the difference between an 18 or a 20 may not be a big deal. Even a 16 would be fine. But if the primary stat for your class is a 12 or 14, that will probably be fine for the first tier of play, but once you start getting into higher tiers you will not be as effective against enemies with higher AC, higher HP, and higher save bonuses. So you have to start using your ASIs early (even in that first tier) to make sure your character is going to catch up. Not to mention that your primary ability score for a certain class will in some cases play into your abilities (this is especially true for Int with a Battle Smith Artificer).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Who says you're going to get the same numbers? Even with some sort of mitigation rules in place there's a pretty decent chance of two negative modifiers for instance. The negatives can also be much more pronounced than an 8 stat / -1 modifier.
Let's try some more random arrays:
14 9 12 13 15 16
15 9 6 14 6 6
18 13 11 14 14 14
17 7 12 10 12 11
15 10 12 10 14 9
17 14 10 14 14 16
15 13 11 15 14 11
15 14 11 15 12 11
11 12 8 15 15 12
9 15 13 10 14 11
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A couple really good ones, a couple roughly comparable to a standard array and a couple a little bit below standard array, with none of them poor enough that I'd feel a need to offer a reroll or some other adjustment. That's a really nice result for illustration purposes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The totals are all over the place what do you mean?
For just the first 5:
So your lowest total score is 22 points lower than your highest and well below the 72 point "average"....that is a huge difference.
If you are saying this is a "balanced" party then I guess we will have to disagree. I think having appropriate challenges for this party would be difficult to not nuke the 62 while not making it to easy for the 80.
This only highlights why true rolling is bad anyway IMO.....
So it proves the first point I have: Rolling produces uneven parties.
It does not even address my second which is: Most people have a mitigation for low scores. If you roll below a 72 you can use point buy or the like.
Nobody disputes rolling can produce uneven parties. What I dispute is that this is a problem. A DM can nuke whoever they want regardless of stats anyway. A DM can favour challenges that play into the wheelhouse of characters with fewer strengths. Items can be provided to shore up egregious weaknesses. Tactics can be adjusted. I've never had any problems making every member of a party relevant regardless of disparate stats.
What these arrays also show is that rolling produces statlines that are both viable and significantly different from the standard array - which rebutts the "why roll if you are going to get the same numbers" argument.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But why make it harder by having a party with such a drastic difference in ability scores? Its not making anything easier and pretty much only has the potential of creating problems...
The benefits are......lol randomz? Not sure...
Personally I like the idea of the party setting a "campaign array" where rolling the stats is split between members of the party (and DM if necessary). The downside is everyone has the exact same starting scores (which isnt a huge problem to me, since each party member will probably spread them differently, choose different races/lineages, and choose to apply ASIs differently anyway). The benefit is that all of the party still gets to roll and feel that they are influencing the characters and its a shared experience at the table. Plus no one has to worry about being significantly worse than another member of the party.
But it does lack some variety I admit.
Another idea that just popped up, what about a weird mix of point buy and rolling. Hear me out. Everyone rolls 3d6 for their scores (thus allowing for a variety of different values, but all of those values will on average be on the lower side since you dont get to drop any low ones) then from there they get a limited number of points to increase the score? Idk, Im sure there could be a fun middle ground reached that way.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's not really harder. I take individual character qualities into account anyway, regardless of the method used to generate statlines.
As for 'lol randomz', just because you don't value something doesn't mean others can't like it. You do you, we do us, everybody wins.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I saw a cool one in a Call of Cthulhu stream -- house rule, not standard from that game (I think). Because they were trying to do a long campaign and CoC can be rather deadly, for each stat they rolled, 2 people rolled dice -- the GM and the player. The player then got to pick whether to use the GM's roll or their roll. They ended up with some nice stats but not super-over-the-top. There were times when both the GM and the player rolled crap at the same time.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That is fair and I should do better about attempting to understand it probably.
It's just in my experience and the experience of a lot of my long time DM buddies (of which I am but a small fraction of time spend playing DnD Compared to them) we have never had great experiences with rolling for stats but our experiences are but a fraction of those of everyone.
I will likely not use it ever but I do like they have it as an option for people.
In general, the way to do 'balanced but random' is to have random allocation of a pool of points, though it tends to either require after the fact tweaks or messy die rolling. For example, using standard (27) point build:
You can do the same with other numbers of points, or other point system. For example, you might have
You now want to roll 21d6 and reroll if you get more than 9 matching dice. There's about a 2.5% chance of having an 18, and 7% of a 3.
I saw a cool one once that was like this:
You lay out small index cards with the 6 attribute names, STR, DEX, etc. Then you roll dice 1 at a time. You put the die on the card you want. So if you want, say, a high str, you can put your 6s and 5s on the STR card, and the 2s and 3s on the CHA card, or what have you. I can't remember how many dice they rolled... I am not sure if it was 24 total. But there was also a "dump" card where they could put some of the 1s. Eventually with too many you'd have to keep some, though. And of course as things progressed and you got near the end, you might be able to start dumping 2s and such. Not sure if they could move them about once they had placed them -- I think they could do a few but not all or most of them.
Wish I could remember where I saw it... It was kinda neat.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.