You know, after nearly thirty years of roleplaying games, I can say I really like standard arrays.
Rolling is fun and random but it's ... meh. The risk of getting a party member who is universally good or terrible just doesn't appeal to me as a DM. I'm also really tired of like min/maxed characters. A fighter with 18 str, 18 con and like 3 in int, wisdom? What are the chances?
Standard array? That's easy and quick and fairly tamper-proof. What's not to love?
Not true. Firstly, I find the monsters to be incredibly weak even for the 25 point buy in a well adjusted party. Just as I would adjust the players to make them more effective, so would I adjust the monsters where they needed it.
So... you boost the PCs, and then you boost the NPCs. What exactly did you gain from this exercise?
I'm not trying to boost them in terms of raw power, more the list of options they have available. That would be the difference I'm aiming for. By example, I think my growing preference is for the default standard array, but with feats each having a +1 ASI automatically attached, or 2 ASI's if they already had one as some do.
Not true. Firstly, I find the monsters to be incredibly weak even for the 25 point buy in a well adjusted party. Just as I would adjust the players to make them more effective, so would I adjust the monsters where they needed it.
So... you boost the PCs, and then you boost the NPCs. What exactly did you gain from this exercise?
I'm not trying to boost them in terms of raw power, more the list of options they have available. That would be the difference I'm aiming for. By example, I think my growing preference is for the default standard array, but with feats each having a +1 ASI automatically attached, or 2 ASI's if they already had one as some do.
You can do that without giving them more ability points. For example, my current DM is using point build, and allowed us to spend 4 ability points for a starting feat.
@Pantagruel - But in that case you're trading the raw power or such for the customization. I understand there's the argument that Feats can have a power threshold kinda increase that may be equivalent to a 2 point stat increase, though I'm skeptical about that. I personally feel it's best to get one or two stats to an 18 prior to investing in feats, unless the stat increases are attached.
Also, don't you feel the 4 Attribute points for 1 feat is more handicap than anything? If it works and the games fun, roll on, but as I try to dig into this editiom I'm very mechanically oriented.
@Pantagruel - But in that case you're trading the raw power or such for the customization. I understand there's the argument that Feats can have a power threshold kinda increase that may be equivalent to a 2 point stat increase, though I'm skeptical about that. I personally feel it's best to get one or two stats to an 18 prior to investing in feats, unless the stat increases are attached.
Also, don't you feel the 4 Attribute points for 1 feat is more handicap than anything? If it works and the games fun, roll on, but as I try to dig into this editiom I'm very mechanically oriented.
It's 4 points in the point build -- i.e. you have a 23 point character rather than a 27. It's usually not going to actually cost you 4 attribute points, and what it does cost you isn't in your main stat, so it's not really a huge loss. No feat is as good as +2 to your primary stat (to the extent I've considered saying that ASIs must be split between two stats), but plenty are as useful as a few points of tertiary stats.
@Pantagruel - I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I fully agree with that in relation to even tertiary stats, just because of the way saves work in this edition, but I can see an argument on both sides.
In regards critical role (discussing again purely the base stats): Yasha is the rare case by example of a character in the group with 2 stats lower than 10. For the most by pure memory I admit, they had stats that were one low number (as low as a 6 vs. the point buy arrays 8) and *maybe* one other stat that was a 10, but most often higher. Every other stat seemed to be 14 to 18. And I would absolutely take that 6 for all the other goodies.
Well, can look at stats. It looks like only Yasha was anywhere close to what point buy can do, the rest are all significantly above the point budget and also impossible.
Interesting info provided with the D&D Beyond Data Update, scroll down to see preferred methods of ability score generation. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/news-announcements/59795-dev-update-3-12-2020 Effectively it can be argued that point buy edges out the competition just barely, as there's a near even split on Point Buy & the standard array (which is just one variation of a point bought set). Simultaneously, it's maybe 51 % vs Manual's 48+ % where I'd guess the majority of users are using a rolling method (I believe 4d6, drop the lowest, and repeat 6 times would be the standard). My suspicion based on other polls is that people like myself who prefer a non-standard point buy pool are very much in the minority. Definitely something for me to sit and think on. I imagine I might be asking the greater community it's thoughts on Feats allotted as bonuses per campaign (via Training / Alternate Quest Rewards, straight level bonuses, etc.) as well as how many feats folks feel a PC should have within their career.
Obviously I have my own preferences for the effective power level and perceived options available, but I'm wanting to think ahead on how others feel and perceive both the system as stands and what they want out of it. Apologies to the OP and everyone else for where I contributed to the threads derailment.
One significant factor is that organized play leagues don't permit randomized attributes (or hit points, or treasure, or...) because of the disruptive effects of allowing characters into a campaign where their prior DM was more or less generous.
Sure, but they're still a part of the community and organized play probably contributes to spreading the good word and all that. It was also pointed out by another poster in a similar thread that a lot of time the Character Builder will be used for example PC's, goof off character's, and NPC's that start in PC format but get cut down later (polished so to speak). Still, it's as legit a polling point (list? stat?) as any and when compared with other polls on this site or around the web can help to create a more complete picture. For someone like me it's doubly useful for when I put up an LFG and include within it the method of character generation to be used along with any other house rules or homebrew, etc.
What I did with my current campaign: My group loves rolling, they like the randomness, they like the chance for a real high number, they like the click-clack dice noises. Great. But we've had issues with party imbalance in the past. So this time out, I suggested each of the 5 players, plus me as the DM, roll 4d6 drop the lowest once. We've each got a single stat now, and we pool the 6 of them to make an array that everyone uses. The party isn't balanced to an objective standard, but they're all balanced relative to each other, so nobody feels outshined, I don't have the problem where to challenge the character with godlike stats I have to make encounters that will kill the less lucky characters, etc.
We got an array everyone was happy with, but if you do this you could also repeat the process a second time and then let the players choose which of the two they'd like, since different builds have different needs. If the first array is, say, 17 12 10 10 9 9, someone who wants to play a hexblade is gonna have a really good setup, but a second array of 14 14 14 13 10 7 might be better for a barbarian or monk that needs three good stats, even though the highest stat isn't as high and the lowest stat is lower.
So I'm about to start a campaign with a few players. I did the 4d6 drop the lowest and reroll ones method and as a result the PCs are getting crazy stats, the last one got a [18, 18, 17, 14, 13,13] array. While I don't have an issue with them being powerful, I think there's a big risk of them loosing some of the feeling of expertise. Sure the rogue still has a higher stealth mod because of the expertise but the barbarian still pulls amazing stealth checks because he has a crazy dex mod. The rogue has an intelligence so high he can do all the arcana and checks, not to mention a +6 on investigation.
My point is I'm wary they'll end up not having as much fun because they won't feel special in those situations that their character would make the difference.
I have been using 4d6 drop the lowest since around 2001 as a DM.
For my next campaign, I will be using a different method.
Rolling Stats:
Roll 3d6; add the dice together.
Repeat this a total of 6 times.
1) If any of the 6 dice totals add up to 6 or less, the value becomes 7.
2) Add +3 to the highest number rolled. If more than one have the same number, only add +3 to one of them. The total cannot exceed 18.
3) Add +3 the 2 lowest number rolled. If more than one have the same number, only add +3 to one of them.
Re-Roll if:
1) More than two stats are 9 or lower after modifications.
2) No single stat is at least 16.
So, the point of this seems to be that you want to reduce randomness. In that case, why bother rolling stats at all? The ultimate way to reduce randomness is to not roll.
Generally I prefer point-buy in longer campaigns. It balances the players, and no-one feels "stuck" with a character with horrible stats.
For shorter campaigns/adventures, rolling can be fun. Then the guy that rolled horrible usually ends up using that as a roleplaying thing (since he/she knows it's only for a few sessions).
In my lates campaign I tried a trick I found on this site: All players roll 4d6 (drop lowest) six times, but the players can choose to use any of the other players rolls instead of his own. Worked quite fine, but the players have quite good stats. Keeps some of the randomness, and you don't have any players "moaning" over his poor stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ludo ergo sum!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You know, after nearly thirty years of roleplaying games, I can say I really like standard arrays.
Rolling is fun and random but it's ... meh. The risk of getting a party member who is universally good or terrible just doesn't appeal to me as a DM. I'm also really tired of like min/maxed characters. A fighter with 18 str, 18 con and like 3 in int, wisdom? What are the chances?
Standard array? That's easy and quick and fairly tamper-proof. What's not to love?
Hm. Now I'm pondering a system of rolling and then post-roll balancing. Basic scheme:
HEY, stop personally attacking people!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm not trying to boost them in terms of raw power, more the list of options they have available. That would be the difference I'm aiming for. By example, I think my growing preference is for the default standard array, but with feats each having a +1 ASI automatically attached, or 2 ASI's if they already had one as some do.
You can do that without giving them more ability points. For example, my current DM is using point build, and allowed us to spend 4 ability points for a starting feat.
@Pantagruel - But in that case you're trading the raw power or such for the customization. I understand there's the argument that Feats can have a power threshold kinda increase that may be equivalent to a 2 point stat increase, though I'm skeptical about that. I personally feel it's best to get one or two stats to an 18 prior to investing in feats, unless the stat increases are attached.
Also, don't you feel the 4 Attribute points for 1 feat is more handicap than anything? If it works and the games fun, roll on, but as I try to dig into this editiom I'm very mechanically oriented.
It's 4 points in the point build -- i.e. you have a 23 point character rather than a 27. It's usually not going to actually cost you 4 attribute points, and what it does cost you isn't in your main stat, so it's not really a huge loss. No feat is as good as +2 to your primary stat (to the extent I've considered saying that ASIs must be split between two stats), but plenty are as useful as a few points of tertiary stats.
@Pantagruel - I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I fully agree with that in relation to even tertiary stats, just because of the way saves work in this edition, but I can see an argument on both sides.
In regards critical role (discussing again purely the base stats): Yasha is the rare case by example of a character in the group with 2 stats lower than 10. For the most by pure memory I admit, they had stats that were one low number (as low as a 6 vs. the point buy arrays 8) and *maybe* one other stat that was a 10, but most often higher. Every other stat seemed to be 14 to 18. And I would absolutely take that 6 for all the other goodies.
Well, can look at stats. It looks like only Yasha was anywhere close to what point buy can do, the rest are all significantly above the point budget and also impossible.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniPlease keep it civil,
Disagreements on the topic are fine, and debate is healthy.
But refrain from flaming.
Thanks.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.
Interesting info provided with the D&D Beyond Data Update, scroll down to see preferred methods of ability score generation. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/news-announcements/59795-dev-update-3-12-2020
Effectively it can be argued that point buy edges out the competition just barely, as there's a near even split on Point Buy & the standard array (which is just one variation of a point bought set). Simultaneously, it's maybe 51 % vs Manual's 48+ % where I'd guess the majority of users are using a rolling method (I believe 4d6, drop the lowest, and repeat 6 times would be the standard). My suspicion based on other polls is that people like myself who prefer a non-standard point buy pool are very much in the minority. Definitely something for me to sit and think on. I imagine I might be asking the greater community it's thoughts on Feats allotted as bonuses per campaign (via Training / Alternate Quest Rewards, straight level bonuses, etc.) as well as how many feats folks feel a PC should have within their career.
Obviously I have my own preferences for the effective power level and perceived options available, but I'm wanting to think ahead on how others feel and perceive both the system as stands and what they want out of it. Apologies to the OP and everyone else for where I contributed to the threads derailment.
One significant factor is that organized play leagues don't permit randomized attributes (or hit points, or treasure, or...) because of the disruptive effects of allowing characters into a campaign where their prior DM was more or less generous.
Sure, but they're still a part of the community and organized play probably contributes to spreading the good word and all that. It was also pointed out by another poster in a similar thread that a lot of time the Character Builder will be used for example PC's, goof off character's, and NPC's that start in PC format but get cut down later (polished so to speak). Still, it's as legit a polling point (list? stat?) as any and when compared with other polls on this site or around the web can help to create a more complete picture. For someone like me it's doubly useful for when I put up an LFG and include within it the method of character generation to be used along with any other house rules or homebrew, etc.
What I did with my current campaign: My group loves rolling, they like the randomness, they like the chance for a real high number, they like the click-clack dice noises. Great. But we've had issues with party imbalance in the past. So this time out, I suggested each of the 5 players, plus me as the DM, roll 4d6 drop the lowest once. We've each got a single stat now, and we pool the 6 of them to make an array that everyone uses. The party isn't balanced to an objective standard, but they're all balanced relative to each other, so nobody feels outshined, I don't have the problem where to challenge the character with godlike stats I have to make encounters that will kill the less lucky characters, etc.
We got an array everyone was happy with, but if you do this you could also repeat the process a second time and then let the players choose which of the two they'd like, since different builds have different needs. If the first array is, say, 17 12 10 10 9 9, someone who wants to play a hexblade is gonna have a really good setup, but a second array of 14 14 14 13 10 7 might be better for a barbarian or monk that needs three good stats, even though the highest stat isn't as high and the lowest stat is lower.
I have been using 4d6 drop the lowest since around 2001 as a DM.
For my next campaign, I will be using a different method.
Rolling Stats:
Roll 3d6; add the dice together.
Repeat this a total of 6 times.
1) If any of the 6 dice totals add up to 6 or less, the value becomes 7.
2) Add +3 to the highest number rolled. If more than one have the same number, only add +3 to one of them. The total cannot exceed 18.
3) Add +3 the 2 lowest number rolled. If more than one have the same number, only add +3 to one of them.
Re-Roll if:
1) More than two stats are 9 or lower after modifications.
2) No single stat is at least 16.
4d6 drop lowest seems much less complicated than what you just described.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
So I'm about to start a campaign with a few players. I did the 4d6 drop the lowest and reroll ones method and as a result the PCs are getting crazy stats, the last one got a [18, 18, 17, 14, 13,13] array. While I don't have an issue with them being powerful, I think there's a big risk of them loosing some of the feeling of expertise. Sure the rogue still has a higher stealth mod because of the expertise but the barbarian still pulls amazing stealth checks because he has a crazy dex mod. The rogue has an intelligence so high he can do all the arcana and checks, not to mention a +6 on investigation.
My point is I'm wary they'll end up not having as much fun because they won't feel special in those situations that their character would make the difference.
So, the point of this seems to be that you want to reduce randomness. In that case, why bother rolling stats at all? The ultimate way to reduce randomness is to not roll.
Depends on the "campaign".
Generally I prefer point-buy in longer campaigns. It balances the players, and no-one feels "stuck" with a character with horrible stats.
For shorter campaigns/adventures, rolling can be fun. Then the guy that rolled horrible usually ends up using that as a roleplaying thing (since he/she knows it's only for a few sessions).
In my lates campaign I tried a trick I found on this site: All players roll 4d6 (drop lowest) six times, but the players can choose to use any of the other players rolls instead of his own. Worked quite fine, but the players have quite good stats. Keeps some of the randomness, and you don't have any players "moaning" over his poor stats.
Ludo ergo sum!