I haven’t played D&D in about 30 years. I’m a GURPS guy. Lately, my group was asking for something simpler than GURPS, so we gave D&D 5e a try. I picked up the Legendary Pack (because I loves me my digital books). I had the wild hair to change attribute generation to, 24d6 dropping the lowest six (or, the six you don’t want, in case you want some of them). Because, I’m nuts.
After some testing (mostly rolling through Random.org and throwing a lot of dice in Tabletop Simulator), I came to the conclusion that it was working fine. The law of averages worked out well. However, a couple of points to bring up.
Odds are great, but not guaranteed, that you’ll have at least one, 18.
Odds are fair that you’ll have two, 18s. And, failing that, pretty good that you’ll have a 16 or 17, in addition to the above 18.
Odds are really good that you’ll have four stats above 13.
Odds are really good, if you arrange dice to prevent sub-10 scores, you will succeed.
Now, there were some experiments where the averages tended down (like the one where, for us Hero players, I only had 11 body on a 24d attack—14 ones and only one six, if you care). And there were a couple of experiments where the average tended high (pulled three 18s, and the lowest score was a 14). In the game I’m running, one of the players didn’t arrange to get a single 18. He wound up with four 16s (and a 12 and a 10). Another has one 18, and the next highest is 13, and three 11s. So, it does work out. However, the Ranger started with a 20 Str, and the Rogue started with a 20 Dex.
My takeaway was that this method provides heroic characters. It’s more fun, because who doesn’t love throwing large mounds of dice around a table?
It's certainly an unusual method of ability generation, at least in my experience, but it sounds fun.
Mind, "unusual" methods of ability generations are more usual than the usual ones. My group uses 7 rolls of 4d6 (dropping one dice on each), from which you pick 6. And you do that process twice, and pick the better set for your tastes. Certainly above-average characters, with some very amusing offshoots.
Your roll rolled fairly low. It was below average. But yes, that's how it works. It's fast, and a bit more fun. Gives you a good mix of dice to choose from.
So here is my question. Once you create this set of abilities do the racial bonus stack on top? This is a question for the general audience when rolling character stats and for you in this situation as well.
So here is my question. Once you create this set of abilities do the racial bonus stack on top? This is a question for the general audience when rolling character stats and for you in this situation as well.
Yes. You do. Why would you not?
As it says in Step 3 of Step-by-Step Characters:
"Now take your six numbers and write each number beside one of your character’s six abilities to assign scores to Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Afterward, make any changes to your ability scores as a result of your race choice."
IMO, point buy is the fairest way to go. If player A rolls quite well and player B doesn't....it just is going to cause problems.
I can't remember the last game where character stats were rolled. If I recall, when it was allowed, the player got above average stats and other players resented him for it.
I can't remember the last game where character stats were rolled. If I recall, when it was allowed, the player got above average stats and other players resented him for it.
No one in my game minds that some people got a good spread of dice, while others got an average (or below average). It's a game, and we're playing to have fun. That strikes me as a failure in communications between the DM and the players.
Part of the experience of D&D has always been the completely random attributes. The idea with this method was that it was still random, but gave you a much better ability to mitigate any, individual, bad rolls. Most of the gamers I've played with enjoy rolling mountains of dice and calling out enormous totals (like when Jessica took 105 stun in a single hit--thanks Gummißear).
All ability score methods are equally fair, assuming that the one being used is agreed upon by all of the players rather than their not being allowed any input into how scores will be generated.
Point buy is one of the few generation methods that happen to also be equal, but equality isn't necessary for something to be fair.
Moving on more to the topic of the thread itself: I've used a 24d6 method in the past, but it differs slightly because the players would assign a number of dice to each ability score before rolling (minimum 3d6, maximum of 6d6, keep the 3 best for a given score) straight down the list of ability scores to tweak the odds of getting a higher score in the ability they'd prefer having high. It was fun, but sometimes comically unreliable (folks getting a 14 on a score they put 6 dice towards and a 17-18 on a 3 dice score they didn't care about).
My experience with 5th edition has been that ability scores aren't such a big deal as to have it really matter what they are, so long as the scores a character relies upon are at least 14s, because the benchmark for "good enough" is pretty low and scores capping out at 20 stops short of the score being overwhelming. So for a while there, I was just telling my group "get your scores however you want to - roll some method you made up, do point buy, just deliberately choose the numbers you want, I don't care." and everything was working just fine - except that some of the players would be indecisive and spend a lot of time on what should be a simple and straightforward part of character creation.
So we sat down and decided on a method that would be able to be used relatively quickly and would guarantee scores that the players find acceptable... and I apparently don't have it saved on this computer. I'm pretty sure it was 4d6 drop lowest, roll 6 scores - reroll the whole set if it doesn't contain at least one 14+ or it contains 2+ scores 7 or lower, or 3 scores 9 or lower (something like that, at least - it was inspired by the "shopkeeper rule" from HackMaster).
In my opinion the method for atributes is heavily related to the mood of the game you want to play. For super heroic mayhem you will need players much above everage 10. For somthing grim (do not mistake with dark heroic) you would need something near the everage.
This post has potentially manipulated dice roll results.
Growing up we always did roll 4d6 reroll 1's till you got something different, reroll a 2 once and take whatcha get (even if it's a 1). Made for above average characters but it was also 2nd edition dnd so there was a good chance of dying anyways (at least at our table).
I do like the method described above where you assign up to 6d6 to a score out of a pool of so many dice, could be a lot of fun.
All ability score methods are equally fair, assuming that the one being used is agreed upon by all of the players rather than their not being allowed any input into how scores will be generated.
Point buy is one of the few generation methods that happen to also be equal, but equality isn't necessary for something to be fair.
However, many people do consider equality to be fair. But, if all agree to the same method for attribute generation, then it is fair. Just because you rolled low doesn't mean that the dice weren't fair, you were just unlucky. Luck does not determine fairness.
Moving on more to the topic of the thread itself: I've used a 24d6 method in the past, but it differs slightly because the players would assign a number of dice to each ability score before rolling (minimum 3d6, maximum of 6d6, keep the 3 best for a given score) straight down the list of ability scores to tweak the odds of getting a higher score in the ability they'd prefer having high. It was fun, but sometimes comically unreliable (folks getting a 14 on a score they put 6 dice towards and a 17-18 on a 3 dice score they didn't care about).
To me, that's counting your chickens before they're hatched. It's also a completely different determination system. You're allocating resources before you know their values. It seems less useful than the roll 4d6, drop the lowest, then assign them as the game instructs. While, yes, you're, statistically likely to roll a total of 21 on the 6d6 attribute, you're more likely to roll along the median. The more dice you add, the more likely you are to see the average, which is why the 24d6 method works at all, and doesn't, generally, skew high or low and allows the creation of heroic characters.
The average roll on 24d6 is 84. Most of the rolls I made (especially easy to total in TableTop Simulator) hovered between 80 and 90. Right along the average: A couple of great stats, a couple of good stats, and a couple of mediocre stats. Sure, there were aberrations in the data, where I would roll in the 100+ range, or down in to the 60- range. I only had one sub-50 in my test (the 11 body on 24d roll, which was a total of 48), and I never saw a roll above 110. It's the law of averages that allows this method to work.
However, many people do consider equality to be fair.
Which is why I point out the difference whenever I see someone treat them as synonymous in a case where they aren't, like with ability score generation (which can be fair, equal, or both depending on how it is done).
It seems less useful than the roll 4d6, drop the lowest, then assign them as the game instructs. While, yes, you're, statistically likely to roll a total of 21 on the 6d6 attribute, you're more likely to roll along the median.
The advantage of the pre-determined pools of d6 for particular ability scores is to try and skew the odds of a particular score being higher relative to what was the "standard" method at the time (which mandated rolling each ability score in order, rather than assigning your rolls to abilities as you saw fit). So you'd be able to get the 6.23% chance of an 18 from putting 6d6 in the score you cared about rather than the 1.62% chance of an 18 that 4d6 gives, with the trade-off being only rolling 3d6 for a couple of scores that you put less value upon (such as a player planning on playing a mage rolling 3d6 for Strength & Charisma so they could afford 6d6 for Intelligence).
To me it has always seemed ridiculous that you chose a class and then rolled up your stats. Real cart before the horse stuff. Even if you get to roll the values then assign them wherever, it just seems backwards to me. I've been trialling a character generation method that follows a sort of Fallout model. First choose the race, or roll on the table below, then you roll for each stat, d12 + higher of 2d4 + 2. Reroll entirely if you have more than two values below 10 without anything above 16, or if you and the DM together decide this creature would be better off dying in early childhood. Then put the values, in the order rolled, onto a "wheel" of stats that goes Str-Dex-Cha-Int-Wis-Con-Str. You can then make two swaps of neighbouring values, representing how you chose to adapt your natural gifts as you grew up. Then choose a class based on what this person is good for. Using the two swaps you are generally able to make a workable (if quirky) character of any class, unless your only big roll is on Str then you'll never be able to get it around to Int and be a wizard. Finally you fill in the rest of the gaps with a background and so on.
Race table d8, if you prefer that your party look like regular folk (rather than a demon, a bird, a genie and a turtle walking into an inn and waiting for the punchline)
1-2 Human
3-4 Human, Elf or Dwarf
5-7 also any other PHB race
8 any race
For me, all this results in a group of individuals, with natural strengths and weaknesses rather than being engineered to within an inch of their life. And if the party ends up being 5 human clerics then it is the DM's job to ensure that they go on the best damn adventure 5 clerics could hope for.
I rather like this type of character creation, that is that the rolls and choices dictate what "job" the character has dedicated himself to. It reminds me of earlier editions of DND and lends itself less to min maxing and more rounded characters. I also like the idea of a setting where something like a a genie would be less likely than a human given that there are so many more humans in most parts of the world.
While I may be insane, I also understand maths.
I haven’t played D&D in about 30 years. I’m a GURPS guy. Lately, my group was asking for something simpler than GURPS, so we gave D&D 5e a try. I picked up the Legendary Pack (because I loves me my digital books). I had the wild hair to change attribute generation to, 24d6 dropping the lowest six (or, the six you don’t want, in case you want some of them). Because, I’m nuts.
After some testing (mostly rolling through Random.org and throwing a lot of dice in Tabletop Simulator), I came to the conclusion that it was working fine. The law of averages worked out well. However, a couple of points to bring up.
Odds are great, but not guaranteed, that you’ll have at least one, 18.
Odds are fair that you’ll have two, 18s. And, failing that, pretty good that you’ll have a 16 or 17, in addition to the above 18.
Odds are really good that you’ll have four stats above 13.
Odds are really good, if you arrange dice to prevent sub-10 scores, you will succeed.
Now, there were some experiments where the averages tended down (like the one where, for us Hero players, I only had 11 body on a 24d attack—14 ones and only one six, if you care). And there were a couple of experiments where the average tended high (pulled three 18s, and the lowest score was a 14). In the game I’m running, one of the players didn’t arrange to get a single 18. He wound up with four 16s (and a 12 and a 10). Another has one 18, and the next highest is 13, and three 11s. So, it does work out. However, the Ranger started with a 20 Str, and the Rogue started with a 20 Dex.
My takeaway was that this method provides heroic characters. It’s more fun, because who doesn’t love throwing large mounds of dice around a table?
It's certainly an unusual method of ability generation, at least in my experience, but it sounds fun.
Mind, "unusual" methods of ability generations are more usual than the usual ones. My group uses 7 rolls of 4d6 (dropping one dice on each), from which you pick 6. And you do that process twice, and pick the better set for your tastes. Certainly above-average characters, with some very amusing offshoots.
Let me give it a try: 1 6 1 3 2 5 3 5 2 4 3 1 3 6 4 6 3 6 4 2 6 2 4 3
Lot's of stuff ...
So I keep 3,3,3,6,4,6,2,4,2,5,6,5,4,2,5,4,4,2. Then I end up with 9, 16, 8, 16, 11, 10 is that correct? Not bad.
Lot's of stuff ...
Your roll rolled fairly low. It was below average. But yes, that's how it works. It's fast, and a bit more fun. Gives you a good mix of dice to choose from.
So here is my question. Once you create this set of abilities do the racial bonus stack on top? This is a question for the general audience when rolling character stats and for you in this situation as well.
Lot's of stuff ...
Ah! I see it now. Thanks!
Yes. You do. Why would you not?
As it says in Step 3 of Step-by-Step Characters:
"Now take your six numbers and write each number beside one of your character’s six abilities to assign scores to Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Afterward, make any changes to your ability scores as a result of your race choice."
IMO, point buy is the fairest way to go. If player A rolls quite well and player B doesn't....it just is going to cause problems.
I can't remember the last game where character stats were rolled. If I recall, when it was allowed, the player got above average stats and other players resented him for it.
No one in my game minds that some people got a good spread of dice, while others got an average (or below average). It's a game, and we're playing to have fun. That strikes me as a failure in communications between the DM and the players.
Part of the experience of D&D has always been the completely random attributes. The idea with this method was that it was still random, but gave you a much better ability to mitigate any, individual, bad rolls. Most of the gamers I've played with enjoy rolling mountains of dice and calling out enormous totals (like when Jessica took 105 stun in a single hit--thanks Gummißear).
In my opinion the method for atributes is heavily related to the mood of the game you want to play. For super heroic mayhem you will need players much above everage 10. For somthing grim (do not mistake with dark heroic) you would need something near the everage.
Growing up we always did roll 4d6 reroll 1's till you got something different, reroll a 2 once and take whatcha get (even if it's a 1). Made for above average characters but it was also 2nd edition dnd so there was a good chance of dying anyways (at least at our table).
I do like the method described above where you assign up to 6d6 to a score out of a pool of so many dice, could be a lot of fun.
Handsome Fighter
Which is why I point out the difference whenever I see someone treat them as synonymous in a case where they aren't, like with ability score generation (which can be fair, equal, or both depending on how it is done).
The advantage of the pre-determined pools of d6 for particular ability scores is to try and skew the odds of a particular score being higher relative to what was the "standard" method at the time (which mandated rolling each ability score in order, rather than assigning your rolls to abilities as you saw fit). So you'd be able to get the 6.23% chance of an 18 from putting 6d6 in the score you cared about rather than the 1.62% chance of an 18 that 4d6 gives, with the trade-off being only rolling 3d6 for a couple of scores that you put less value upon (such as a player planning on playing a mage rolling 3d6 for Strength & Charisma so they could afford 6d6 for Intelligence).To me it has always seemed ridiculous that you chose a class and then rolled up your stats. Real cart before the horse stuff. Even if you get to roll the values then assign them wherever, it just seems backwards to me. I've been trialling a character generation method that follows a sort of Fallout model. First choose the race, or roll on the table below, then you roll for each stat, d12 + higher of 2d4 + 2. Reroll entirely if you have more than two values below 10 without anything above 16, or if you and the DM together decide this creature would be better off dying in early childhood. Then put the values, in the order rolled, onto a "wheel" of stats that goes Str-Dex-Cha-Int-Wis-Con-Str. You can then make two swaps of neighbouring values, representing how you chose to adapt your natural gifts as you grew up. Then choose a class based on what this person is good for. Using the two swaps you are generally able to make a workable (if quirky) character of any class, unless your only big roll is on Str then you'll never be able to get it around to Int and be a wizard. Finally you fill in the rest of the gaps with a background and so on.
Race table d8, if you prefer that your party look like regular folk (rather than a demon, a bird, a genie and a turtle walking into an inn and waiting for the punchline)
1-2 Human
3-4 Human, Elf or Dwarf
5-7 also any other PHB race
8 any race
For me, all this results in a group of individuals, with natural strengths and weaknesses rather than being engineered to within an inch of their life. And if the party ends up being 5 human clerics then it is the DM's job to ensure that they go on the best damn adventure 5 clerics could hope for.
I rather like this type of character creation, that is that the rolls and choices dictate what "job" the character has dedicated himself to. It reminds me of earlier editions of DND and lends itself less to min maxing and more rounded characters. I also like the idea of a setting where something like a a genie would be less likely than a human given that there are so many more humans in most parts of the world.
Personally I'm happy to choose a class based on my rolled attributes, however the last group I played with had two options for generation.
1. Standard set- replacing the 8 with an 18.
2. Roll a die 10 and add 8 to it.
They're all fun and it really depends on your group and agreeing to a standard.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.