Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats. Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you? Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I am prepared for the shouting. I get what I deserve ;P
So you have to take into account that D&D is a bonded accuracy system and everything is contingent on those numbers. Beyond this, it’s not so much that it ruins the game as it ruins perceptions, as you point out. There are ways around that of course, but those are table based conversations.
I love 4D6, as a DM. It encourages more diverse builds and stops min maxing based off race, which ironically should be dealt with via Tashas in a month or so. That being said, what I personally do is have everyone at the table roll 4d6, drop the lowest and then I have the group decide on what set of abilities they want. That way we still have the rolled scores, but at the same time everyone has the same scores. If someone somehow rolls a net +1 or lower to all stats(meaning one stat at 12, others are lower), they do a full reroll of all stats for that player. Combine this with scrapping variant human entirely and letting all races get a feat at level 1 and you finally have a system where players feel encouraged to make characters they feel are unique and powerful in their own ways. Now the paradigm shifts to the DM to balance those characters against monsters who are designed around point buy.
Is it a big deal? Yes. Monsters are again designed around point buy, not 20 stat level 1 characters. A flat 10% increase of to hit/save/them missing on you is a big deal. Is it manageable? Yeah.
I think it gets hate from more seasoned players who remember the days of 3d6 in order and if you didn’t get the stats you wanted get rekt. I totally played a 7 str 9 con barbarian in 2nd edition and it SUCKED but at the end of the day low con characters are self fulfilling prophecies and eventually you get another shot.
I’ve used it and never had a problem with it. On the rare occasion that a player came in with 4 different 18s, I just gently told them to go try again. No one ever had a problem with it. Of course, the people I played with were also a self-selecting group and excluded people who seemed like they would abuse the system right from the start. It might be different if you’re playing with a party of strangers online.
Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
Because it can create really unbalanced characters, in both directions. Roll well and you might start off with a 20 in your one key stat. Roll poorly, and starting with a 14 after racial mods is possible.
And this one set of rolls can determine the rest of your campaign. This isn't like a good/bad roll in one session where the effects wear off. It's permanent
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats.
And now we get to the other part. Because now you're not advocating 4d6 drop lowest - you're advocating "4d6 drop lowest, then whine at the DM if you don't like your rolls. Or the DM overrules your roll if they don't like it." And just how bad of a roll is allowed? Is having your top roll be a 12 okay? What about a 13? 14?
And the reverse does that mean the DM should negate somebody's good roll if they roll an 18 on the die? What about a 17? Yeah, that would really bother players, if they roll well and the DM cancels it.
Just the fact that so many people put in these caveats means it's not that well-balanced of a rolling mechanism.
Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
I had a game where we did rolls. I rolled well, and ended up playing a control wizard that was also a better tank than our fighter most of the time. I had fun for a bit, but eventually my character felt a bit like a mary sue, and in hindsight it was not good for the campaign.
It's not about how good the players are vs the monsters - the DM can always adjust the monsters up and down for how good the party is. It's how good the players are compared to each other, so that they all have a chance to shine. It's not good if one player's second and third-best abilities are better than other players' main abilities - makes it much harder for all players to have a chance to shine.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you?
Rolling is much more fine, IMO, in a game where death is frequent and expected. Roll well, PC probably sticks around. Roll poorly, they probably die soon.
In 5e, that "twist of fate and two nat 1s" is probably more theoretical than real - you can go entire campaigns without anyone dying. "Well, the player who rolled well could have died" isn't much consolation if you've spent the whole campaign feeling that the thing your character should be best at is actually better left to someone who rolled better.
Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I mean, it doesn't have to be "Completely ruining" for it to be "making the game worse". And again - it's that ONE set of rolls that's gonna last you the entire campaign. That's what makes it more annoying.
Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
Because it can create really unbalanced characters, in both directions. Roll well and you might start off with a 20 in your one key stat. Roll poorly, and starting with a 14 after racial mods is possible.
And this one set of rolls can determine the rest of your campaign. This isn't like a good/bad roll in one session where the effects wear off. It's permanent
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats.
And now we get to the other part. Because now you're not advocating 4d6 drop lowest - you're advocating "4d6 drop lowest, then whine at the DM if you don't like your rolls. Or the DM overrules your roll if they don't like it." And just how bad of a roll is allowed? Is having your top roll be a 12 okay? What about a 13? 14?
And the reverse does that mean the DM should negate somebody's good roll if they roll an 18 on the die? What about a 17? Yeah, that would really bother players, if they roll well and the DM cancels it.
Just the fact that so many people put in these caveats means it's not that well-balanced of a rolling mechanism.
Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
I had a game where we did rolls. I rolled well, and ended up playing a control wizard that was also a better tank than our fighter most of the time. I had fun for a bit, but eventually my character felt a bit like a mary sue, and in hindsight it was not good for the campaign.
It's not about how good the players are vs the monsters - the DM can always adjust the monsters up and down for how good the party is. It's how good the players are compared to each other, so that they all have a chance to shine. It's not good if one player's second and third-best abilities are better than other players' main abilities - makes it much harder for all players to have a chance to shine.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you?
Rolling is much more fine, IMO, in a game where death is frequent and expected. Roll well, PC probably sticks around. Roll poorly, they probably die soon.
In 5e, that "twist of fate and two nat 1s" is probably more theoretical than real - you can go entire campaigns without anyone dying. "Well, the player who rolled well could have died" isn't much consolation if you've spent the whole campaign feeling that the thing your character should be best at is actually better left to someone who rolled better.
Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I mean, it doesn't have to be "Completely ruining" for it to be "making the game worse". And again - it's that ONE set of rolls that's gonna last you the entire campaign. That's what makes it more annoying.
It isn't awful. It's just an available option that can be used for character creation just like Standard Array, Point Buy and any other option. Some people like using it and others don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much?
Because the standard 4d6 keep 3 (order stats however you like) just makes the game straight up worse for absolutely no benefit. There are stat rolling options that at least have compensating benefits (e.g. rolling stats without the option to reorder) because they force you to come up with concepts you would otherwise not consider, but once you incorporate rearranging stats, it's just "roll dice at the start of the game to find out if you'll just be better, worse, or roughly even with the other PCs".
This is actually my husband's preferred method of generating stats, so I have used it for over twenty years through various editions. The only problem I have seen is the occasional player who shows up with exceptionally high scores on ALL abilities. Of course, this is often the same player who always claims to have rolled double digits and snatches up dice before anyone can see them. With honest, mature players, there is no reason not to use it. In fact, while I have not looked at the math, I suspect that this method actually provides slightly higher scores than the standard point buy.
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much?
Because the standard 4d6 keep 3 (order stats however you like) just makes the game straight up worse for absolutely no benefit. There are stat rolling options that at least have compensating benefits (e.g. rolling stats without the option to reorder) because they force you to come up with concepts you would otherwise not consider, but once you incorporate rearranging stats, it's just "roll dice at the start of the game to find out if you'll just be better, worse, or roughly even with the other PCs".
Ah, the "Your fun is wrong" people will tell you that anything other than Point Buy or Standard Array is bad and you should feel bad. Lucky for us, their opinions are no more valid than ours in the grand scheme of things and holds no value at our own tables. If you enjoy the way you play, then that is all that matters.
This is actually my husband's preferred method of generating stats, so I have used it for over twenty years through various editions. The only problem I have seen is the occasional player who shows up with exceptionally high scores on ALL abilities. Of course, this is often the same player who always claims to have rolled double digits and snatches up dice before anyone can see them. With honest, mature players, there is no reason not to use it. In fact, while I have not looked at the math, I suspect that this method actually provides slightly higher scores than the standard point buy.
After reading this debate, overall I still like 4d6 drop the lowest, for the same reason you do. Also, I forgot to mention that I (and other DMs I’ve played with) usually give out a freebie point pool after everyone has rolled their stats like they do in the Storyteller system to insure that no one is stuck with a character with average or below average stats (they are adventurers, after all).
I don’t know that rolling for stats is particularly “hated.” My preference, both as a player and as a GM, is to minimize the influence of randomness as much as possible. In my mind, character creation should be all about choice.
Point buy gives almost as much variety while providing much more flexibility and allowing more interesting decision-making for players.
At my table, D&D character creation should not be random. My players choose who your character is, not the Dice Gods. Almost everything else inside my games are left up to chance; the NPCs, how combat goes, side plots, and most of the rest that can be random. The Dice Gods determine my campaign, but I don't let them determine my campaign's PCs. You choose who you want to play, how you want to play them, and what you do, not the dice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
Because it can create really unbalanced characters, in both directions. Roll well and you might start off with a 20 in your one key stat. Roll poorly, and starting with a 14 after racial mods is possible.
What's wrong with a 14?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
They mean that the highest you rolled was a 12 or 13, giving your main stat a 14. That can suck if you don't like not having good stats. Point Buy or Standard Array does not have this problem unless you chose to have it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
They mean that the highest you rolled was a 12 or 13, giving your main stat a 14. That can suck if you don't like not having good stats. Point Buy or Standard Array does not have this problem unless you chose to have it.
They mean that the highest you rolled was a 12 or 13, giving your main stat a 14. That can suck if you don't like not having good stats. Point Buy or Standard Array does not have this problem unless you chose to have it.
While possible, I've never seen it. *knock on wood*
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It also depends on how mature your players are. If you have a table of teenage power gamers and you get a big variation, then you are likely to find the one that rolled badly will become a problem player. On the other hand if your players are grown ups then it allows for a much greater diversity and options for characters. Personally I always use it.
In short, ability scores had a lot less impact back in the day, they were more a reflection of the narrative then having any real mechanical effect on the game. In 1st edition for example the difference between an ability score of 5 and 17 in most attributes had very little impact on the mechanical performance of a character.
1st edition Basic maybe. 1st edition AD&D it mattered a significant amount, though unlike 5e, mostly in edge cases (the difference between an 8 and a 14 barely mattered).
A lot depends on how mature and power gaming your players are, if the swashbuckler rolled really well and has 16 Cha (with higher dex, con and possibly wis) while the Bard has 14 Cha who plays the face?
Allowing re-rolls can turn into a lot of debate as to what is TOO good or TOO bad or a very complex set of rules to define such.
I agree that point buy can lead to a lot of similar builds their are a couple of solutions to get variety and balance
Variant point buy, say do a 30 point buy and you can but a 16 for 12 points
Do one set of 4d6 drop lowest and everyone uses that as an array, alternatively let everyone roll but you can use anyone's set of dice.
I have also seen a approach where you use 18 playing cards (with values between 2 and 6) and placing them into 6 piles of 3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, hello. I'm going to yelled at for this, and probably told I'm terrible for not knowing, but that's fine, I rolled 18 on my emotional CON anyway ;P
I've seen a lot of hate on the 4d6-drop-lowest method, like a LOT of it, and I don't fully understand why? I've mulled it over and I can see some of the problems, and admit that point-buy is better for balance but... even if its inferior, why is it hated SO much? Did a bunch of people here just have traumatic experiences with crappy DMs that played favorites and allowed "honor code" rolls with four different 18s?
The way I see it, if a DM were to do 4d6 drop-lowest, he'd be doing it at character creation at session 0. If someone rolled REALLY crappy or REALLY well, he (being a decent and good person) would tell them to reroll a couple numbers and then let them assign their stats. Now I recognize that some players would have objectively better stats than others but... in this game at level 1, is the difference between a +2 and a +3 REALLY that big a deal? All it does is move a player's roll-range from 3-23 to 4-24, there's still plenty of opportunity to fail.
Is it really that game ruining when someone has better averages than you, even though a twist of fate and two nat 1s could kill them just as easily as it could kill you? Wouldn't it say more about the quality of people at the table, and possibly the DM specifically, when the person with 90 cumulative stat points is completely ruining everything for the folks with 80?
I am prepared for the shouting. I get what I deserve ;P
So you have to take into account that D&D is a bonded accuracy system and everything is contingent on those numbers. Beyond this, it’s not so much that it ruins the game as it ruins perceptions, as you point out. There are ways around that of course, but those are table based conversations.
I love 4D6, as a DM. It encourages more diverse builds and stops min maxing based off race, which ironically should be dealt with via Tashas in a month or so. That being said, what I personally do is have everyone at the table roll 4d6, drop the lowest and then I have the group decide on what set of abilities they want. That way we still have the rolled scores, but at the same time everyone has the same scores. If someone somehow rolls a net +1 or lower to all stats(meaning one stat at 12, others are lower), they do a full reroll of all stats for that player. Combine this with scrapping variant human entirely and letting all races get a feat at level 1 and you finally have a system where players feel encouraged to make characters they feel are unique and powerful in their own ways. Now the paradigm shifts to the DM to balance those characters against monsters who are designed around point buy.
Is it a big deal? Yes. Monsters are again designed around point buy, not 20 stat level 1 characters. A flat 10% increase of to hit/save/them missing on you is a big deal. Is it manageable? Yeah.
I think it gets hate from more seasoned players who remember the days of 3d6 in order and if you didn’t get the stats you wanted get rekt. I totally played a 7 str 9 con barbarian in 2nd edition and it SUCKED but at the end of the day low con characters are self fulfilling prophecies and eventually you get another shot.
I’ve used it and never had a problem with it. On the rare occasion that a player came in with 4 different 18s, I just gently told them to go try again. No one ever had a problem with it. Of course, the people I played with were also a self-selecting group and excluded people who seemed like they would abuse the system right from the start. It might be different if you’re playing with a party of strangers online.
I use 4d6 and standard array in my games. Both work fine.
"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
Because it can create really unbalanced characters, in both directions. Roll well and you might start off with a 20 in your one key stat. Roll poorly, and starting with a 14 after racial mods is possible.
And this one set of rolls can determine the rest of your campaign. This isn't like a good/bad roll in one session where the effects wear off. It's permanent
And now we get to the other part. Because now you're not advocating 4d6 drop lowest - you're advocating "4d6 drop lowest, then whine at the DM if you don't like your rolls. Or the DM overrules your roll if they don't like it." And just how bad of a roll is allowed? Is having your top roll be a 12 okay? What about a 13? 14?
And the reverse does that mean the DM should negate somebody's good roll if they roll an 18 on the die? What about a 17? Yeah, that would really bother players, if they roll well and the DM cancels it.
Just the fact that so many people put in these caveats means it's not that well-balanced of a rolling mechanism.
I had a game where we did rolls. I rolled well, and ended up playing a control wizard that was also a better tank than our fighter most of the time. I had fun for a bit, but eventually my character felt a bit like a mary sue, and in hindsight it was not good for the campaign.
It's not about how good the players are vs the monsters - the DM can always adjust the monsters up and down for how good the party is. It's how good the players are compared to each other, so that they all have a chance to shine. It's not good if one player's second and third-best abilities are better than other players' main abilities - makes it much harder for all players to have a chance to shine.
Rolling is much more fine, IMO, in a game where death is frequent and expected. Roll well, PC probably sticks around. Roll poorly, they probably die soon.
In 5e, that "twist of fate and two nat 1s" is probably more theoretical than real - you can go entire campaigns without anyone dying. "Well, the player who rolled well could have died" isn't much consolation if you've spent the whole campaign feeling that the thing your character should be best at is actually better left to someone who rolled better.
I mean, it doesn't have to be "Completely ruining" for it to be "making the game worse". And again - it's that ONE set of rolls that's gonna last you the entire campaign. That's what makes it more annoying.
Hmm. You raise some very interesting points.
It isn't awful. It's just an available option that can be used for character creation just like Standard Array, Point Buy and any other option. Some people like using it and others don't.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Because the standard 4d6 keep 3 (order stats however you like) just makes the game straight up worse for absolutely no benefit. There are stat rolling options that at least have compensating benefits (e.g. rolling stats without the option to reorder) because they force you to come up with concepts you would otherwise not consider, but once you incorporate rearranging stats, it's just "roll dice at the start of the game to find out if you'll just be better, worse, or roughly even with the other PCs".
This is actually my husband's preferred method of generating stats, so I have used it for over twenty years through various editions. The only problem I have seen is the occasional player who shows up with exceptionally high scores on ALL abilities. Of course, this is often the same player who always claims to have rolled double digits and snatches up dice before anyone can see them.
With honest, mature players, there is no reason not to use it. In fact, while I have not looked at the math, I suspect that this method actually provides slightly higher scores than the standard point buy.
Ah, the "Your fun is wrong" people will tell you that anything other than Point Buy or Standard Array is bad and you should feel bad. Lucky for us, their opinions are no more valid than ours in the grand scheme of things and holds no value at our own tables. If you enjoy the way you play, then that is all that matters.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
After reading this debate, overall I still like 4d6 drop the lowest, for the same reason you do. Also, I forgot to mention that I (and other DMs I’ve played with) usually give out a freebie point pool after everyone has rolled their stats like they do in the Storyteller system to insure that no one is stuck with a character with average or below average stats (they are adventurers, after all).
I don’t know that rolling for stats is particularly “hated.” My preference, both as a player and as a GM, is to minimize the influence of randomness as much as possible. In my mind, character creation should be all about choice.
Point buy gives almost as much variety while providing much more flexibility and allowing more interesting decision-making for players.
At my table, D&D character creation should not be random. My players choose who your character is, not the Dice Gods. Almost everything else inside my games are left up to chance; the NPCs, how combat goes, side plots, and most of the rest that can be random. The Dice Gods determine my campaign, but I don't let them determine my campaign's PCs. You choose who you want to play, how you want to play them, and what you do, not the dice.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"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
They mean that the highest you rolled was a 12 or 13, giving your main stat a 14. That can suck if you don't like not having good stats. Point Buy or Standard Array does not have this problem unless you chose to have it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, you’ve got a point there.
While possible, I've never seen it. *knock on wood*
"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
It also depends on how mature your players are. If you have a table of teenage power gamers and you get a big variation, then you are likely to find the one that rolled badly will become a problem player. On the other hand if your players are grown ups then it allows for a much greater diversity and options for characters. Personally I always use it.
1st edition Basic maybe. 1st edition AD&D it mattered a significant amount, though unlike 5e, mostly in edge cases (the difference between an 8 and a 14 barely mattered).
A lot depends on how mature and power gaming your players are, if the swashbuckler rolled really well and has 16 Cha (with higher dex, con and possibly wis) while the Bard has 14 Cha who plays the face?
Allowing re-rolls can turn into a lot of debate as to what is TOO good or TOO bad or a very complex set of rules to define such.
I agree that point buy can lead to a lot of similar builds their are a couple of solutions to get variety and balance