Once upon a time, I rolled up a character with 4d6 drop the lowest. I was very pleased with the results I got. [15, 14, 15, 11, 11, 12] I was thrilled! Nothing below 10! I was so excited! I made her a Variant Human as that's my favorite race, (+1 to Str and Con) and came out with [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, and Cha 12] Perfect for my Fighter.
At 1st level:
Human Fighter [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 14]
Gnome Wizard [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 8]
Currently at 4th level:
Human Fighter [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 16]
Gnome Wizard [Str 19, Dex 14, Con 17, Int 20, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 9]
So then: The Gnome Wizard started with the highest Str. My primary score. The Halfling Rogue has the highest Dex. Hardly a surprise. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con. Wow. The Gnome Wizard has the best Int. Of course! The Genasi Druid has the highest Wis. Again, of course. The Half-Elf Ranger has the highest Cha. Interesting.
The lowest Str is the Halfling Rogue. Ok. The lowest Dex is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Shrug. The lowest Con goes to the Half-Elf Ranger and the Halfling Rogue. That's odd for the Half-Elf Ranger. The lowest Int is the Genasi Druid. Ok. The lowest Wis is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Again. Shrug. The lowest Cha is the Rogue. Ok.
I thought I had good scores. The Gnome Wizard beats me for my primary score, Strength. The Halfling Rogue beats me for Dex, which is fine with me. I don't need Dex at all, and only grabbed some for the bonuses to Saves, and Initiative. I started with 14, the Halfling Rogue ended up with 19 which makes perfect sense. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con, at 18, which puts the Genasi Druid and the Gnome Wizard at 18 and 17 respectively. That's my second highest priority for scores. The Genasi Druid is pretty remarkable and perfectly reasonable, but the Gnome Wizard got some pretty amazing rolls. The Gnome Wizard got the highest Int in the party. The only one who needs Int for anything really, so that makes perfect sense, but I'm still pretty amazed with that Gnome Wizard's rolls. The Genasi Druid got the highest Wis, which seems very much as it should be. The Half-Elf has the highest Cha, which is ok. None of us need Cha really. I have no idea why the Halfling Rogue bothered to raise that.
The Gnome Wizard beats me or ties me in everything.
The Half-Elf Ranger has almost as much Str, beats me by a huge margin in Dex, has a strangely low Con, and beats me in everything else.
Genasi Druid has a low Str, a little higher Dex, a huge Con, a low Int, a massive Wis, and the same Cha as I have.
The Halfling Rogue has a tiny Str, a Dex that is enormous, a Con that's fine, an Int that's all right, a Wis that's all right as well, and a Cha that's almost as low as can be.
So what does it all mean? Well, I was thrilled with my scores, but the Gnome Wizard's luck with dice boggles my mind. The Half-Elf Ranger's luck was amazing, The Genasi Druid is fine, and I really pity that poor Halfling Rogue. The only thing the Halfling Rogue has going for them is their Dexterity. I'm extremely jealous of the Wizard, I'm jealous of the Ranger, the Druid is an NPC, so who cares, and the Rogue makes me sad. Did the random rolls have anything positive that I can say about them? Not so far as I can see. I think we would all have been better off with Point Buy for scores. I've ended up sad and jealous, but when I started out I was so happy! That was in the beginning, before I knew what anybody's scores were. I only noticed because I was seeing such huge damage numbers out of the party, and now I'm sorry I ever looked.
So what do you think, my fellow DM's? It seems to me like the primary method recommended in the Player's Handbook, Random roll, is the worst possible choice, and the best option, Point Buy, is the one that's considered "optional". I don't like the pre-generated array. I won't play a character with a score under 10 for roleplaying reasons. I can't believe in a Heroic character with scores that are below normal. Tell me which method of generating ability scores you prefer, and why.
Personally, I'd use Point Buy, and if they changed the pre-generated array score of an 8 to a 10, I might use that.
as a DM no matter what method I use for generating stats (rolling, point buy or array) I always insist that every player have a stat which is 8 or lower and my players know not to make it Int automatically because I find many many ways to use Int in a campaign. But I also really dislike Min Maxing at my table, my players are here to tell a story collectively, that is not just about hitting things or causing max damage. We will sometimes go several sessions without a single combat. In these situations the players get the most fun out of leaning into there characters weakness.
If you look throughout fantasy fiction the best characters had a stat below 8, Ironman, Hulk, Frodo, Arragorn, Daenerys, Tyrion even Conan all had weaknesses
Once upon a time, I rolled up a character with 4d6 drop the lowest. I was very pleased with the results I got. [15, 14, 15, 11, 11, 12] I was thrilled! Nothing below 10! I was so excited! I made her a Variant Human as that's my favorite race, (+1 to Str and Con) and came out with [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, and Cha 12] Perfect for my Fighter.
At 1st level:
Human Fighter [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 14]
Gnome Wizard [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 8]
Currently at 4th level:
Human Fighter [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 16]
Gnome Wizard [Str 19, Dex 14, Con 17, Int 20, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 9]
So then: The Gnome Wizard started with the highest Str. My primary score. The Halfling Rogue has the highest Dex. Hardly a surprise. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con. Wow. The Gnome Wizard has the best Int. Of course! The Genasi Druid has the highest Wis. Again, of course. The Half-Elf Ranger has the highest Cha. Interesting.
The lowest Str is the Halfling Rogue. Ok. The lowest Dex is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Shrug. The lowest Con goes to the Half-Elf Ranger and the Halfling Rogue. That's odd for the Half-Elf Ranger. The lowest Int is the Genasi Druid. Ok. The lowest Wis is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Again. Shrug. The lowest Cha is the Rogue. Ok.
I thought I had good scores. The Gnome Wizard beats me for my primary score, Strength. The Halfling Rogue beats me for Dex, which is fine with me. I don't need Dex at all, and only grabbed some for the bonuses to Saves, and Initiative. I started with 14, the Halfling Rogue ended up with 19 which makes perfect sense. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con, at 18, which puts the Genasi Druid and the Gnome Wizard at 18 and 17 respectively. That's my second highest priority for scores. The Genasi Druid is pretty remarkable and perfectly reasonable, but the Gnome Wizard got some pretty amazing rolls. The Gnome Wizard got the highest Int in the party. The only one who needs Int for anything really, so that makes perfect sense, but I'm still pretty amazed with that Gnome Wizard's rolls. The Genasi Druid got the highest Wis, which seems very much as it should be. The Half-Elf has the highest Cha, which is ok. None of us need Cha really. I have no idea why the Halfling Rogue bothered to raise that.
The Gnome Wizard beats me or ties me in everything.
The Half-Elf Ranger has almost as much Str, beats me by a huge margin in Dex, has a strangely low Con, and beats me in everything else.
Genasi Druid has a low Str, a little higher Dex, a huge Con, a low Int, a massive Wis, and the same Cha as I have.
The Halfling Rogue has a tiny Str, a Dex that is enormous, a Con that's fine, an Int that's all right, a Wis that's all right as well, and a Cha that's almost as low as can be.
So what does it all mean? Well, I was thrilled with my scores, but the Gnome Wizard's luck with dice boggles my mind. The Half-Elf Ranger's luck was amazing, The Genasi Druid is fine, and I really pity that poor Halfling Rogue. The only thing the Halfling Rogue has going for them is their Dexterity. I'm extremely jealous of the Wizard, I'm jealous of the Ranger, the Druid is an NPC, so who cares, and the Rogue makes me sad. Did the random rolls have anything positive that I can say about them? Not so far as I can see. I think we would all have been better off with Point Buy for scores. I've ended up sad and jealous, but when I started out I was so happy! That was in the beginning, before I knew what anybody's scores were. I only noticed because I was seeing such huge damage numbers out of the party, and now I'm sorry I ever looked.
So what do you think, my fellow DM's? It seems to me like the primary method recommended in the Player's Handbook, Random roll, is the worst possible choice, and the best option, Point Buy, is the one that's considered "optional". I don't like the pre-generated array. I won't play a character with a score under 10 for roleplaying reasons. I can't believe in a Heroic character with scores that are below normal. Tell me which method of generating ability scores you prefer, and why.
Personally, I'd use Point Buy, and if they changed the pre-generated array score of an 8 to a 10, I might use that.
as a DM no matter what method I use for generating stats (rolling, point buy or array) I always insist that every player have a stat which is 8 or lower and my players know not to make it Int automatically because I find many many ways to use Int in a campaign. But I also really dislike Min Maxing at my table, my players are here to tell a story collectively, that is not just about hitting things or causing max damage. We will sometimes go several sessions without a single combat. In these situations the players get the most fun out of leaning into there characters weakness.
If you look throughout fantasy fiction the best characters had a stat below 8, Ironman, Hulk, Frodo, Arragorn, Daenerys, Tyrion even Conan all had weaknesses
What did Aragorn have below 8? He seems generally good at, like, everything.
But I also really dislike Min Maxing at my table, my players are here to tell a story collectively, that is not just about hitting things or causing max damage. We will sometimes go several sessions without a single combat. In these situations the players get the most fun out of leaning into their characters weakness.
Hear hear... well said.
What did Aragorn have below 8? He seems generally good at, like, everything.
Aragorn's level 20 and used his ASIs to buy up his lowest stat. You can't compare Aragorn to a level 1 character with starting stats.
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.
Aragorn's level 20 and used his ASIs to buy up his lowest stat. You can't compare Aragorn to a level 1 character with starting stats.
We have no evidence for Aragorn being level 20, or even particularly high level at all. There are plenty of heroic fictional characters with no especially notable weaknesses, but who also aren't super powerful. In multiplayer games it's good to have every PC have a niche that they're the best at, but that doesn't mean they have to have a special weakness.
You really can't convert characters in other media into characters in a roleplaying game. So I'm going to agree with you and show an example.
Conan The Barbarian. Great character. He came from a harsh and isolated environment, had to become tough and learn to fight, and headed out into the world kicking and screaming against it. Amusingly, he's only a Barbarian in a technical sense. I can't remember ever seeing him Rage. He's a smart guy, a very tactical fighter, and he wears the heaviest armor he can get hold of any time he can. He ends up in nothing but shoes and a loincloth because his armor takes so much damage that it gets destroyed. What class is he? I don't know. He fights very well, he's kind of sneaky when it's called for, he utterly hates magic... so none of the caster types. We are left with Fighters and Rogues, of the non-magical persuasion. About all that's left would be Battlemaster, Cavalier, and Champion on the Fighter side, on the Rogue side there's really only Scout and Thief.
The archetypal Champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection. Those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows. You are skilled in stealth and surviving far from the streets of a city, allowing you to scout ahead of your companions during expeditions. Rogues who embrace this archetype are at home in the wilderness and among barbarians and rangers, and many Scouts serve as the eyes and ears of war bands. Ambusher, spy, bounty hunter — these are just a few of the roles that Scouts assume as they range the world.
I'd start out as a Rogue myself, become a Scout at 3rd level, and head off into the world to find my fortune. I'd become a Fighter then, and a Champion at 3rd level in that. Now I'm 6th level, and I've got a minimum of 13 in Strength and Dexterity. Conan never showed the slightest sign of any physical flaws, so he's got at least a 10 everywhere else. He was always remarkably strong, fast, tough, smart, wise, and charismatic. Conan The Champion - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com) is what I come up with.
Once upon a time, I rolled up a character with 4d6 drop the lowest. I was very pleased with the results I got. [15, 14, 15, 11, 11, 12] I was thrilled! Nothing below 10! I was so excited! I made her a Variant Human as that's my favorite race, (+1 to Str and Con) and came out with [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, and Cha 12] Perfect for my Fighter.
At 1st level:
Human Fighter [Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 14]
Gnome Wizard [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 8]
Currently at 4th level:
Human Fighter [Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int, 11, Wis 11, Cha 12]
Half-Elf Ranger [Str 16, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 16]
Gnome Wizard [Str 19, Dex 14, Con 17, Int 20, Wis 11, Cha 13]
Genasi Druid [Str 10, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 12]
Halfling Rogue [Str 9, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 9]
So then: The Gnome Wizard started with the highest Str. My primary score. The Halfling Rogue has the highest Dex. Hardly a surprise. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con. Wow. The Gnome Wizard has the best Int. Of course! The Genasi Druid has the highest Wis. Again, of course. The Half-Elf Ranger has the highest Cha. Interesting.
The lowest Str is the Halfling Rogue. Ok. The lowest Dex is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Shrug. The lowest Con goes to the Half-Elf Ranger and the Halfling Rogue. That's odd for the Half-Elf Ranger. The lowest Int is the Genasi Druid. Ok. The lowest Wis is tied with me and the Gnome Wizard. Again. Shrug. The lowest Cha is the Rogue. Ok.
I thought I had good scores. The Gnome Wizard beats me for my primary score, Strength. The Halfling Rogue beats me for Dex, which is fine with me. I don't need Dex at all, and only grabbed some for the bonuses to Saves, and Initiative. I started with 14, the Halfling Rogue ended up with 19 which makes perfect sense. The Genasi Druid has the highest Con, at 18, which puts the Genasi Druid and the Gnome Wizard at 18 and 17 respectively. That's my second highest priority for scores. The Genasi Druid is pretty remarkable and perfectly reasonable, but the Gnome Wizard got some pretty amazing rolls. The Gnome Wizard got the highest Int in the party. The only one who needs Int for anything really, so that makes perfect sense, but I'm still pretty amazed with that Gnome Wizard's rolls. The Genasi Druid got the highest Wis, which seems very much as it should be. The Half-Elf has the highest Cha, which is ok. None of us need Cha really. I have no idea why the Halfling Rogue bothered to raise that.
The Gnome Wizard beats me or ties me in everything.
The Half-Elf Ranger has almost as much Str, beats me by a huge margin in Dex, has a strangely low Con, and beats me in everything else.
Genasi Druid has a low Str, a little higher Dex, a huge Con, a low Int, a massive Wis, and the same Cha as I have.
The Halfling Rogue has a tiny Str, a Dex that is enormous, a Con that's fine, an Int that's all right, a Wis that's all right as well, and a Cha that's almost as low as can be.
So what does it all mean? Well, I was thrilled with my scores, but the Gnome Wizard's luck with dice boggles my mind. The Half-Elf Ranger's luck was amazing, The Genasi Druid is fine, and I really pity that poor Halfling Rogue. The only thing the Halfling Rogue has going for them is their Dexterity. I'm extremely jealous of the Wizard, I'm jealous of the Ranger, the Druid is an NPC, so who cares, and the Rogue makes me sad. Did the random rolls have anything positive that I can say about them? Not so far as I can see. I think we would all have been better off with Point Buy for scores. I've ended up sad and jealous, but when I started out I was so happy! That was in the beginning, before I knew what anybody's scores were. I only noticed because I was seeing such huge damage numbers out of the party, and now I'm sorry I ever looked.
So what do you think, my fellow DM's? It seems to me like the primary method recommended in the Player's Handbook, Random roll, is the worst possible choice, and the best option, Point Buy, is the one that's considered "optional". I don't like the pre-generated array. I won't play a character with a score under 10 for roleplaying reasons. I can't believe in a Heroic character with scores that are below normal. Tell me which method of generating ability scores you prefer, and why.
Personally, I'd use Point Buy, and if they changed the pre-generated array score of an 8 to a 10, I might use that.
as a DM no matter what method I use for generating stats (rolling, point buy or array) I always insist that every player have a stat which is 8 or lower and my players know not to make it Int automatically because I find many many ways to use Int in a campaign. But I also really dislike Min Maxing at my table, my players are here to tell a story collectively, that is not just about hitting things or causing max damage. We will sometimes go several sessions without a single combat. In these situations the players get the most fun out of leaning into there characters weakness.
If you look throughout fantasy fiction the best characters had a stat below 8, Ironman, Hulk, Frodo, Arragorn, Daenerys, Tyrion even Conan all had weaknesses
What did Aragorn have below 8? He seems generally good at, like, everything.
I would argue his intelligence, although probably a bad example as that was probably 10/12 :) but the point I was trying to make was to the Hero's shouldn't have a weakness comment, many many heroes have weaknesses and don't make the right decisions or do the right thing so saying that a hero should never have an 8 is ignoring the fantasy tropes 5th edition is basing itself on.
I like point buy a lot because it allows customization for the ability scores, but it is not random like the random roll system. The pre-generated array does not allow for much customization, and the random roll might make a character too powerful or very weak, depending on the rolls they get.
I once did a campaign where one of my players, a warforged fighter, got a really good roll with the random roll system (a 17), and he had a +2 to Con, and he got Con 19 at level 1. Now, I usually just use the point buy system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A villain is just a victim whose story hasn’t been told" -Chris Colfer
Bach is the best composer ever. "What about secondbreakfast?" -Pippin Took.
I have decided to use the amended array 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 But my players do also like rolling so I have given them the option to roll their stats and if they roll badly use the array.
I have decided to use the amended array 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 But my players do also like rolling so I have given them the option to roll their stats and if they roll badly use the array.
My group liked the amended array you mention.
I personally would probably prefer to "roll stats in order" and take what I get. I think it leads to more creative places for me, that way.
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.
Personally my most recent campaign was with a bunch of friends so I did standard array because it seems the best way to handle new players who don't really have a frame of reference one way or another but that doesn't really seem to answer the question posed soooo
Aside from Point Buy, Random Roll, and standard array I think the Amended Array looks cool. It makes you more powerful in the stats you're character would use while still showing that they aren't amazing at everything and I like that a lot. Another Random Roll system I've been theory crafting though I have two off shoots of it and am unsure which I really prefer is a spin on the "Roll xdx and drop x" idea except I add in character saving throw proficiency's
The first is Roll 5d6 drop the lowest for any saving throw proficiency drop the 2 lowest if you aren't proficient (No stats over 20). So in theory if you're a fighter when you go to roll your stats for strength you would roll 5d6 and drop the lowest, same for constitution, and then for Int,Wis,Cha,Dex you would essentially roll 5d6 then drop 2 which is basically like the regular roll 4d6 and drop the lowest except you have a slightly better odd of getting another high number.
I only ran this once and it seemed to work fine, but the sample pool is small. I myself tend to DM more long form games so in the little over 3 years I've been DMing I havent had that many total tables.
The other idea is roll 6d4 drop the lowest for proficiency and 2 for non proficient but I havent tested it and d4's having higher odds of rolling 1's im not sure would work but it's a theory.
I'll end my post with I don't think even if you did the 5d6 method drop 1 or 2 needs to go off saving throw proficiency I only did that because it makes sense for most classes atleast in my mind that your saving throw proficiency's would be what your class would focus on. A fighter training to be a fighter would probably focus more on making their body stronger and tougher than say a Bard who would focus on whooing the people and performing but I would say you could give players any 2 options to drop 1 dice and the other four they would drop 2. I should also preface I tend to dislike roll for random skills and tend to enjoy more controlled skill gaining because that just makes more sense to me. Sure you could be a wizard who was born naturally a bit bulkier than the average person but in the end would you be stronger ever than the warrior who has trained their whole life for this? To me that's not even really min maxing its about every player feeling like they have their own niche in the party so they can feel like they contribute equally.
Edit: I would also like to challenge the OP's idea of hero "I don't like the pre-generated array. I won't play a character with a score under 10 for roleplaying reasons. I can't believe in a Heroic character with scores that are below normal." So to start a commoner has 10 in all stats. So for standard array which does give you and 8 you might be thinking "BUT WAIT I HAVE ONE STAT WORSE THAN A COMMONERS?!?!?!?!" Yes...but you also have 4 stats that exceed them in everyway 3 of which far surpass anything they are capable of and thats the trade off no? a Commoner is an all arounder being bad at nothing but being good at nothing, where as you have trained your life for certain things so other things go by the wayside. Remember as a commoner their stat total is 60 while as a base hero who is just really starting their adventure you start with 72 total with various ways to increase that. If that doesn't scream "born under a wandering star" I don't know what does. Another example is how legends are told. In my current campaign I have various NPC characters that act as the old guard, old adventurers and hero's both to inspire my players and give them something to chase after. One is a rogue who "Could melt into the shadows at a whim, whose feet seemingly never touched the ground, who could hit a target with his dagger dead center from over 100 yards" etc etc but in these legends you don't hear that he could heave boulders and lift manticores because his strength sucked. Then my players run into an old man nearly 100 years of age who rambles that he beat the rogue in an arm wrestling match. The players of course are like yeah sure w/e old man but in lore it did happen. The rogue who slayed dragons and stopped a calamity type event, lost an arm wrestling match and 10 gold in a tavern to this man...but which one of them will be remembered as a hero for centuries to come?
I won't play a character with a score below 10. That's just me. People are quite free to do otherwise if they feel it tells a better story. I do not accept mechanical penalties for roleplaying decisions and I do not expect anyone else to. If they want a low score, that's just dandy. I will give them Inspiration for that once per gaming session at most, and allow the other players to vote on any more among themselves.
I won't play a character with a score below 10. That's just me. People are quite free to do otherwise if they feel it tells a better story. I do not accept mechanical penalties for roleplaying decisions and I do not expect anyone else to. If they want a low score, that's just dandy. I will give them Inspiration for that once per gaming session at most, and allow the other players to vote on any more among themselves.
Why should your character have no area in which they are worse than average in? Every good character in any media or fiction has flaws, and I feel that in D&D you need to have roleplay flaws as well as mechanical flaws to play a character right. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I really don't see why you just flat out refuse to play a character who, god forbid, is bad at something. I mean if I decide that my character is bad with words and not a charming person it makes sense that when I roll for that type of thing that I have a penalty to it. Again, it's fine for you to have that opinion, I just don't agree with it.
I actually *want* an 8 or lower in *something*. Makes my character have flaws... makes him/her more realistic. And I do this in other games, not just D&D. Flaws are great, because they give me something to RP about.
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.
I used to play Champions, a super-hero roleplaying game, in which flaws were one of the ways of getting more points, which were used then to buy more powers and better stats. You started out with 100 points, and you could get another 150 from your Disadvantages. The classic example of this is Superman, who is nearly invincible, but Kryptonite takes away all his powers. He's by no means anything close to a 250 point Champions character or course, but he's a good illustration of what I mean. Every hero had flaws built in.
Here's the thing. In Champions, you got more points for a flaw that could not be negated. That was called "Always On".
D&D is not really a point based kind of game. There are a few places where it is. Scores is one of them. So tell me, if you want to think back to Lord of the Rings, which pretty much everyone agrees is the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons, which one of the characters has a flaw that they never, in any way, overcome at least briefly?
Frodo Baggins is a coward. He shows this flaw most clearly on Weathertop. When the Ringwraiths come from the Hobbits, as terrifying as those beings are, which one of the Hobbits was the one who dropped their weapon and tried to get away? So then, did you never see him do something brave? Fight something instead of run?
Samwise Gamgee is the true hero of the movie. Tell me, which flaws does he show that he never overcomes?
Pippin the Fool of a Took. Does he never get wise, even for a moment? Which of his flaws is Always On?
Meriadoc Brandybuck is very similar to Pip. So again, which of his flaws can you point out that doesn't ever go away?
Moving up a little, there is Gimli, Son of Gloin. He gets played for laughs. So well me, which of his scores is an 8? It's not Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha... Maybe Charisma? He's pretty rude. I mean, look how he behaved towards the Elves. I clearly remember the part where he spit in Galadriel's face when she offered him a gift. I can't seem to find it anymore. It must have been in a Directors Cut somewhere, a version that my Extended Edition 4 hour long version of The Fellowship of the Ring doesn't have. Do post me a link to that version on Amazon please.
Legolas is just filled with flaws!
I could go on this way, but if you haven't seen my point by now, nobody is ever going to.
If I am given my druthers, I'll have no score below 10. If I have a flaw that is unsurmountable, is that heroic? I thought one of the definitions of a hero is that they overcome the obstacles in their way, they keep on trying when others do not, and what makes them heroic is when they triumph in the end. Sure, I can waste those ASI's I get fixing what I don't want rather than getting something I do want, but I don't see why I should have to, and that's what people keep saying.
D&D is not really a point based kind of game. There are a few places where it is. Scores is one of them. So tell me, if you want to think back to Lord of the Rings, which pretty much everyone agrees is the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons, which one of the characters has a flaw that they never, in any way, overcome at least briefly?
Yes, everyone can roll well. A -1 on a d20 simply isn't that big of a deal.
Kind of the opposite of what I want. I don't actually see any value to a random system that allows you to pick the order of your stats, what gets out of a rut is things like "Your fighter has Int 14, why did that happen?"
Yup, that's what I like about it. Rather than going on saying, "I am going to be a Monk" and then making it happen by putting the stats in the right place to get an optimized Monk, I have started preferring rolling stats in order, randomly, and then looking at what's produced and saying, "OK, stat-wise, this looks like a Druid" (or whatever) and go from there. Then I could see myself randomly rolling some of the other stuff as well.
Maybe it's just the amount of Ironsworn I've been playing and all the "Me, Myself, and Die" that I watched with Trevor Devall, but I've come to see the value of randomly rolling stuff and then creatively coming up with a way to interpret it, rather than arbitrarily deciding what I want ahead of time. Again, I tend to get into a rut of sameness if I just decide what to do... but if I randomize, I come up with something different -- and it gets me going in a totally different direction than I would have come up with on my own.
There has been some talk of one of my players doing some DMing if I need a break in the near future, and one of the other players asked, "What character will you make," and I told him, I'll see what the dice say. He said, well, we're probably going to use point buy or the standard array. I said that is fine... I'll roll the dice, and then either point buy my rolls as best I can, or put the closest #s I can for the stat array into it (the numbers won't match, but one of the stats will be "highest," one "second highest," etc.).
I love this and did it with a character I am going to be playing in an upcoming campaign. I rolled 9 STR 16 DEX 15 CON 12 INT 18 WIS 15 CHA. That led me to pick Druid for the class and I ended on a Firbolg Druid with 10 STR 16 DEX 15 CON 12 INT 20 WIS 15 CHA at level 1. The nice thing is I can explore Feats with him because his ability scores are fine as is.
D&D is not really a point based kind of game. There are a few places where it is. Scores is one of them. So tell me, if you want to think back to Lord of the Rings, which pretty much everyone agrees is the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons, which one of the characters has a flaw that they never, in any way, overcome at least briefly?
Yes, everyone can roll well. A -1 on a d20 simply isn't that big of a deal.
You are right. It's not that big of a deal. Unless of course you stop to think about how many times you roll dice and have to apply that penalty. Small things add up over time, and that's the straw that breaks my camel's back. Poor camel. It didn't deserve to be mistreated because someone else thinks that's fun.
Known by my locals as "The Conal Method" Your pre-racial bonus scores must total 72. You can't have any single score be over 18 or less than 6. Again, before racial bonuses. This allows for you to have 12s across the board if you were so inclined, but you could also start with some high numbers if you are willing to take some 6s. This is to encourage my players to take feats, which I find more interesting than ASIs.
Stealing this!
When I DM, I either allow my players to Point Buy or use the Standard Array. My philosophy is that "rolling is dramatic and should be saved for drama at the table."
Making a character isn't dramatic. Leveling up is awesome, but it isn't narratively dramatic, and happens between sessions. Save time and just add a static number, or pick one.
Then again, I've never found rolling a bunch of dice and writing down effectively identical results all of that exciting. Sure, it's cool when you get a 17 or 18, but it doesn't make that big of a difference.
One random method I've always wanted to try though, is 3d6, 1's count as 6's... as in 1, 1, 6 = 18.
as a DM no matter what method I use for generating stats (rolling, point buy or array) I always insist that every player have a stat which is 8 or lower and my players know not to make it Int automatically because I find many many ways to use Int in a campaign. But I also really dislike Min Maxing at my table, my players are here to tell a story collectively, that is not just about hitting things or causing max damage. We will sometimes go several sessions without a single combat. In these situations the players get the most fun out of leaning into there characters weakness.
If you look throughout fantasy fiction the best characters had a stat below 8, Ironman, Hulk, Frodo, Arragorn, Daenerys, Tyrion even Conan all had weaknesses
What did Aragorn have below 8? He seems generally good at, like, everything.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Hear hear... well said.
Aragorn's level 20 and used his ASIs to buy up his lowest stat. You can't compare Aragorn to a level 1 character with starting stats.
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.
We have no evidence for Aragorn being level 20, or even particularly high level at all. There are plenty of heroic fictional characters with no especially notable weaknesses, but who also aren't super powerful. In multiplayer games it's good to have every PC have a niche that they're the best at, but that doesn't mean they have to have a special weakness.
Yeah I think you made my point while disagreeing with me, since my point is you can't compare characters in a book to characters in an RPG.
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.
You really can't convert characters in other media into characters in a roleplaying game. So I'm going to agree with you and show an example.
Conan The Barbarian. Great character. He came from a harsh and isolated environment, had to become tough and learn to fight, and headed out into the world kicking and screaming against it. Amusingly, he's only a Barbarian in a technical sense. I can't remember ever seeing him Rage. He's a smart guy, a very tactical fighter, and he wears the heaviest armor he can get hold of any time he can. He ends up in nothing but shoes and a loincloth because his armor takes so much damage that it gets destroyed. What class is he? I don't know. He fights very well, he's kind of sneaky when it's called for, he utterly hates magic... so none of the caster types. We are left with Fighters and Rogues, of the non-magical persuasion. About all that's left would be Battlemaster, Cavalier, and Champion on the Fighter side, on the Rogue side there's really only Scout and Thief.
The archetypal Champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection. Those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows. You are skilled in stealth and surviving far from the streets of a city, allowing you to scout ahead of your companions during expeditions. Rogues who embrace this archetype are at home in the wilderness and among barbarians and rangers, and many Scouts serve as the eyes and ears of war bands. Ambusher, spy, bounty hunter — these are just a few of the roles that Scouts assume as they range the world.
I'd start out as a Rogue myself, become a Scout at 3rd level, and head off into the world to find my fortune. I'd become a Fighter then, and a Champion at 3rd level in that. Now I'm 6th level, and I've got a minimum of 13 in Strength and Dexterity. Conan never showed the slightest sign of any physical flaws, so he's got at least a 10 everywhere else. He was always remarkably strong, fast, tough, smart, wise, and charismatic. Conan The Champion - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com) is what I come up with.
<Insert clever signature here>
I would argue his intelligence, although probably a bad example as that was probably 10/12 :) but the point I was trying to make was to the Hero's shouldn't have a weakness comment, many many heroes have weaknesses and don't make the right decisions or do the right thing so saying that a hero should never have an 8 is ignoring the fantasy tropes 5th edition is basing itself on.
I like point buy a lot because it allows customization for the ability scores, but it is not random like the random roll system. The pre-generated array does not allow for much customization, and the random roll might make a character too powerful or very weak, depending on the rolls they get.
I once did a campaign where one of my players, a warforged fighter, got a really good roll with the random roll system (a 17), and he had a +2 to Con, and he got Con 19 at level 1. Now, I usually just use the point buy system.
"A villain is just a victim whose story hasn’t been told" -Chris Colfer
Bach is the best composer ever. "What about second breakfast?" -Pippin Took.
Make America Great Britain Again.
I have decided to use the amended array 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 But my players do also like rolling so I have given them the option to roll their stats and if they roll badly use the array.
My group liked the amended array you mention.
I personally would probably prefer to "roll stats in order" and take what I get. I think it leads to more creative places for me, that way.
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.
Personally my most recent campaign was with a bunch of friends so I did standard array because it seems the best way to handle new players who don't really have a frame of reference one way or another but that doesn't really seem to answer the question posed soooo
Aside from Point Buy, Random Roll, and standard array I think the Amended Array looks cool. It makes you more powerful in the stats you're character would use while still showing that they aren't amazing at everything and I like that a lot. Another Random Roll system I've been theory crafting though I have two off shoots of it and am unsure which I really prefer is a spin on the "Roll xdx and drop x" idea except I add in character saving throw proficiency's
The first is Roll 5d6 drop the lowest for any saving throw proficiency drop the 2 lowest if you aren't proficient (No stats over 20). So in theory if you're a fighter when you go to roll your stats for strength you would roll 5d6 and drop the lowest, same for constitution, and then for Int,Wis,Cha,Dex you would essentially roll 5d6 then drop 2 which is basically like the regular roll 4d6 and drop the lowest except you have a slightly better odd of getting another high number.
I only ran this once and it seemed to work fine, but the sample pool is small. I myself tend to DM more long form games so in the little over 3 years I've been DMing I havent had that many total tables.
The other idea is roll 6d4 drop the lowest for proficiency and 2 for non proficient but I havent tested it and d4's having higher odds of rolling 1's im not sure would work but it's a theory.
I'll end my post with I don't think even if you did the 5d6 method drop 1 or 2 needs to go off saving throw proficiency I only did that because it makes sense for most classes atleast in my mind that your saving throw proficiency's would be what your class would focus on. A fighter training to be a fighter would probably focus more on making their body stronger and tougher than say a Bard who would focus on whooing the people and performing but I would say you could give players any 2 options to drop 1 dice and the other four they would drop 2. I should also preface I tend to dislike roll for random skills and tend to enjoy more controlled skill gaining because that just makes more sense to me. Sure you could be a wizard who was born naturally a bit bulkier than the average person but in the end would you be stronger ever than the warrior who has trained their whole life for this? To me that's not even really min maxing its about every player feeling like they have their own niche in the party so they can feel like they contribute equally.
Edit: I would also like to challenge the OP's idea of hero "I don't like the pre-generated array. I won't play a character with a score under 10 for roleplaying reasons. I can't believe in a Heroic character with scores that are below normal." So to start a commoner has 10 in all stats. So for standard array which does give you and 8 you might be thinking "BUT WAIT I HAVE ONE STAT WORSE THAN A COMMONERS?!?!?!?!" Yes...but you also have 4 stats that exceed them in everyway 3 of which far surpass anything they are capable of and thats the trade off no? a Commoner is an all arounder being bad at nothing but being good at nothing, where as you have trained your life for certain things so other things go by the wayside. Remember as a commoner their stat total is 60 while as a base hero who is just really starting their adventure you start with 72 total with various ways to increase that. If that doesn't scream "born under a wandering star" I don't know what does. Another example is how legends are told. In my current campaign I have various NPC characters that act as the old guard, old adventurers and hero's both to inspire my players and give them something to chase after. One is a rogue who "Could melt into the shadows at a whim, whose feet seemingly never touched the ground, who could hit a target with his dagger dead center from over 100 yards" etc etc but in these legends you don't hear that he could heave boulders and lift manticores because his strength sucked. Then my players run into an old man nearly 100 years of age who rambles that he beat the rogue in an arm wrestling match. The players of course are like yeah sure w/e old man but in lore it did happen. The rogue who slayed dragons and stopped a calamity type event, lost an arm wrestling match and 10 gold in a tavern to this man...but which one of them will be remembered as a hero for centuries to come?
I won't play a character with a score below 10. That's just me. People are quite free to do otherwise if they feel it tells a better story. I do not accept mechanical penalties for roleplaying decisions and I do not expect anyone else to. If they want a low score, that's just dandy. I will give them Inspiration for that once per gaming session at most, and allow the other players to vote on any more among themselves.
<Insert clever signature here>
Why should your character have no area in which they are worse than average in? Every good character in any media or fiction has flaws, and I feel that in D&D you need to have roleplay flaws as well as mechanical flaws to play a character right. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I really don't see why you just flat out refuse to play a character who, god forbid, is bad at something. I mean if I decide that my character is bad with words and not a charming person it makes sense that when I roll for that type of thing that I have a penalty to it. Again, it's fine for you to have that opinion, I just don't agree with it.
I actually *want* an 8 or lower in *something*. Makes my character have flaws... makes him/her more realistic. And I do this in other games, not just D&D. Flaws are great, because they give me something to RP about.
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.
I used to play Champions, a super-hero roleplaying game, in which flaws were one of the ways of getting more points, which were used then to buy more powers and better stats. You started out with 100 points, and you could get another 150 from your Disadvantages. The classic example of this is Superman, who is nearly invincible, but Kryptonite takes away all his powers. He's by no means anything close to a 250 point Champions character or course, but he's a good illustration of what I mean. Every hero had flaws built in.
Here's the thing. In Champions, you got more points for a flaw that could not be negated. That was called "Always On".
D&D is not really a point based kind of game. There are a few places where it is. Scores is one of them. So tell me, if you want to think back to Lord of the Rings, which pretty much everyone agrees is the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons, which one of the characters has a flaw that they never, in any way, overcome at least briefly?
Frodo Baggins is a coward. He shows this flaw most clearly on Weathertop. When the Ringwraiths come from the Hobbits, as terrifying as those beings are, which one of the Hobbits was the one who dropped their weapon and tried to get away? So then, did you never see him do something brave? Fight something instead of run?
Samwise Gamgee is the true hero of the movie. Tell me, which flaws does he show that he never overcomes?
Pippin the Fool of a Took. Does he never get wise, even for a moment? Which of his flaws is Always On?
Meriadoc Brandybuck is very similar to Pip. So again, which of his flaws can you point out that doesn't ever go away?
Moving up a little, there is Gimli, Son of Gloin. He gets played for laughs. So well me, which of his scores is an 8? It's not Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha... Maybe Charisma? He's pretty rude. I mean, look how he behaved towards the Elves. I clearly remember the part where he spit in Galadriel's face when she offered him a gift. I can't seem to find it anymore. It must have been in a Directors Cut somewhere, a version that my Extended Edition 4 hour long version of The Fellowship of the Ring doesn't have. Do post me a link to that version on Amazon please.
Legolas is just filled with flaws!
I could go on this way, but if you haven't seen my point by now, nobody is ever going to.
If I am given my druthers, I'll have no score below 10. If I have a flaw that is unsurmountable, is that heroic? I thought one of the definitions of a hero is that they overcome the obstacles in their way, they keep on trying when others do not, and what makes them heroic is when they triumph in the end. Sure, I can waste those ASI's I get fixing what I don't want rather than getting something I do want, but I don't see why I should have to, and that's what people keep saying.
<Insert clever signature here>
Yes, everyone can roll well. A -1 on a d20 simply isn't that big of a deal.
I love this and did it with a character I am going to be playing in an upcoming campaign. I rolled 9 STR 16 DEX 15 CON 12 INT 18 WIS 15 CHA. That led me to pick Druid for the class and I ended on a Firbolg Druid with 10 STR 16 DEX 15 CON 12 INT 20 WIS 15 CHA at level 1. The nice thing is I can explore Feats with him because his ability scores are fine as is.
You are right. It's not that big of a deal. Unless of course you stop to think about how many times you roll dice and have to apply that penalty. Small things add up over time, and that's the straw that breaks my camel's back. Poor camel. It didn't deserve to be mistreated because someone else thinks that's fun.
<Insert clever signature here>
Stealing this!
When I DM, I either allow my players to Point Buy or use the Standard Array. My philosophy is that "rolling is dramatic and should be saved for drama at the table."
Making a character isn't dramatic. Leveling up is awesome, but it isn't narratively dramatic, and happens between sessions. Save time and just add a static number, or pick one.
Then again, I've never found rolling a bunch of dice and writing down effectively identical results all of that exciting. Sure, it's cool when you get a 17 or 18, but it doesn't make that big of a difference.
One random method I've always wanted to try though, is 3d6, 1's count as 6's... as in 1, 1, 6 = 18.
That averages 13 (nearly a point higher than 4k3) with a 1/27 chance to get an 18 (also much higher).