PDA

View Full Version : Anyone roll 5d6 instead of 4d6 for stats?



Dr.Epic
2011-05-28, 09:59 AM
I was just wondering this: when I first started playing my DM would have us roll 5d6 and get rid of the two lowest rolls for stats instead of 4d6 and lose the lowest roll. I'm just wondering if anyone else has done this 'cause it seems everyone else I encounter that plays is used to doing it with 4d6.

Morghen
2011-05-28, 10:08 AM
I was going to post how "I never blah, blah, blah" but after some thinking about it, I have rolled 4d6 for stats one time. The rest of the time it's been 3d6.

But I'm not a 3e or 4e guy, so YMMV.

FyreByrd
2011-05-28, 10:09 AM
I generally favour 5d6 for games I DM.

3.5 is high powered fantasy...5d6 stats (usually) reflect that a little better

dsmiles
2011-05-28, 10:11 AM
Sometimes. It depends on the power level I want the PCs to have. But, not normally. It's usually 4d6 drop one, or if I'm feeling sadistic, 3d6. :smallcool:

LibraryOgre
2011-05-28, 11:10 AM
My recent kick for C&C has been "3d6, arrange to taste, raise any two stats to 15." It gives variety, choice, and still provides the occasional low stat.

I may have unconsciously been influence by MERP's "You can raise your Prime Attributes to 90"

Thiyr
2011-05-28, 11:15 AM
Our group has always done 4d6 drop lowest, though for a one-shot we did try out "roll for it or choose your own stats and make it fit the idea you had". I liked that option, personally, because i tend to feel obligated to use the "best" stat set when I roll (because of how I tend not to get them too often), while choosing them lets me be good at what I do best, and fine tune whether or not I have a crippling disability, a weakness, or am just average at other stuff.

Yknow, saying it like that makes me wish I had done that for the character I had that was a legitimate cripple. Oh well.

Glimbur
2011-05-28, 12:23 PM
I usually point buy. 32 point buy, which is generous but not completely ridiculous.

Quietus
2011-05-28, 01:05 PM
5d6 is pretty common in PbP games on this forum. In fact, 5d6b3, roll 7 times, drop lowest roll isn't unusual either.

BlackestOfMages
2011-05-28, 01:05 PM
I've been accused of rolling 5 dice once by the other players (18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 16...*), but notmally it's been 4d6.

unless it's supposed to be a high-powered/epic progressions campaign. at which case it's 5d6

never done point buy before, might be interesting

* I wasted this on a monk:smallbiggrin:

Dr.Epic
2011-05-28, 01:08 PM
I've been accused of rolling 5 dice once by the other players (18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 16...*), but notmally it's been 4d6.

unless it's supposed to be a high-powered/epic progressions campaign. at which case it's 5d6

never done point buy before, might be interesting

* I wasted this on a monk:smallbiggrin:

Meh, monks don't really have a dump stat. Not like you were making a barbarian that needs one two stats.

MrRigger
2011-05-28, 01:14 PM
My first DM had the rule of roll 4d6, re-roll any 1s or 2s, and if you ended up with an 18, you roll one more d6 and add that in, even if it's a 1 or 2. Helped a guy make his first ever D&D character using this method, and he rolled it in front of everyone, and he ended up with stats of 23, 21, 20, 17, 16, 15, arranged as he wanted for his Human Psion. Pity the campaign only lasted for one session, those were the craziest stats I had ever seen at character creation.

MrRigger

Asheram
2011-05-28, 01:21 PM
We used to go 4d6 drop one as well as a re-roll if the combined sum was under... I think it was 75.

But after... Certain people went up with three 18's as initial stat we begun with a point buy of 80 (total sum 80) with no initial stats (Before racial mods) over 20 and none under 8

Shadowknight12
2011-05-28, 02:08 PM
Stats don't really make that much of a difference in the long run, so I've recently allowed my players to roll 6d6 and drop the lowest three. Before that, I had them roll 5d6 and drop the lowest 2. In all fairness, the stats are still more or less the same. Instead of having something like "8, 7, 10, 16, 12, 11" they have more or less stats like "8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17." That's more in line with a typical (32) point buy.

I prefer point buy (the higher, the better, of course), but a lot of people really like rolling for stats. Odd!

LibraryOgre
2011-05-28, 02:08 PM
My first DM had the rule of roll 4d6, re-roll any 1s or 2s, and if you ended up with an 18, you roll one more d6 and add that in, even if it's a 1 or 2. Helped a guy make his first ever D&D character using this method, and he rolled it in front of everyone, and he ended up with stats of 23, 21, 20, 17, 16, 15, arranged as he wanted for his Human Psion. Pity the campaign only lasted for one session, those were the craziest stats I had ever seen at character creation.

MrRigger

Sounds like Palladium.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-28, 02:27 PM
I was just wondering this: when I first started playing my DM would have us roll 5d6 and get rid of the two lowest rolls for stats instead of 4d6 and lose the lowest roll. I'm just wondering if anyone else has done this 'cause it seems everyone else I encounter that plays is used to doing it with 4d6.

I do this all the time now.

Eldan
2011-05-28, 02:52 PM
I use 4d6b3 straight. And I actually often think that the results are pretty damn high.

Savannah
2011-05-28, 02:52 PM
My preferred real-life method is 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest. But since that's hard to do with the forum die roller, I tend to use 5d6 in pbp, as I find it tends to give the same sorts of numbers I like. (Not saying they're mathematically similar; I haven't done the calculations and have no idea. But I like what the results from both methods.)

gbprime
2011-05-28, 03:07 PM
Until the past 2 campaigns, our group was always seven (4d6 drop lowest) and pick the best six. But I noticed that two players still always had incredible stats. So we've been 32 point buy recently.

Naturally, the "incredible stat" players complain that it's too low powered. :smalltongue:

Dr.Epic
2011-05-28, 03:19 PM
You know, I just remembered another stat generating system that yields high results. I only used it once and I had 2 18's (before racial mods), two 16's, a 14, and a 12. It went like this:

-for one stat roll a d2 and add 16
-for another stat roll a d4 and add 14
-for your third stat roll a d6 and add 12
-for the fourth stat roll a d8 and add 10
-for the fifth stat roll a d10 and add 8
-for the sixth stat roll a d12 and add 6

rayne_dragon
2011-05-28, 04:15 PM
I had a DM who let me roll a d20 for my character's physical stats once. Due to also being able to reroll if my total modifiers for the character are negative I managed to roll up a cleric with Strength 20 and Con 18. Funnily enough his wisdom was 10. :smallbiggrin: So far he's been my favourite cleric, although I never got to really play my 4e pacifist cleric who seemed like she was going to be a lot of fun.

Welknair
2011-05-28, 05:50 PM
When we first made characters for our current game, I decided that we'd use the Elite Array. But I misremembered it. So we've been using an incorrect version this whole time. But it's too late to change it now. So whenever we get a new player I have to explain why we're using 16,14,13,12,11,10. Eh, close enough. Though in retrospect, it would be nice if the players had at least one below-10 stat not caused by racial modifiers.

valadil
2011-05-28, 09:37 PM
I like point buy. I've never rolled higher than 4d6b3r1.

The absolute weirdest I've done for stat creation was choose your own. Nobody wants to look like the jerk who took the best stats, so you end up taking high stats and second guessing if they're the highest in the group. In retrospect maybe I should have gone with straight 18s just to see what the GM did.

Melayl
2011-05-28, 11:10 PM
I haven't had the chance to game in a while, but the last time we did 3d6, drop the lowest, add 8, arrange to taste.

5d6 drop the lowest 2 sounds fine also.

Eldan
2011-05-29, 08:54 AM
I like point buy. I've never rolled higher than 4d6b3r1.

The absolute weirdest I've done for stat creation was choose your own. Nobody wants to look like the jerk who took the best stats, so you end up taking high stats and second guessing if they're the highest in the group. In retrospect maybe I should have gone with straight 18s just to see what the GM did.

Shrug, probably. Other than maybe your primary stat for casters, it's really not all that important how high your stats are. Plus, do you really think you could accurately represent such a Paragon of humanity (or whatever else your race)?

DontEatRawHagis
2011-05-29, 10:42 AM
My stats are usually rolled 4d6, reroll 1's and drop lowest.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-05-29, 12:09 PM
My first group did roll 4d6b3 on free re-roll; but you kept it even if it was worse than the original, or re-roll if your total modifier summed less than a +4... I got tired of barely getting 16's and 15 when other players got high rolls.

Rolling is quite unfair in my opinion, so when I GM I default to point but, usually 32 points; but next campaign I am debating weather using 36 or 40 points (important/plot enemies get this too :evil grin:)

TinselCat
2011-05-29, 02:15 PM
I haven't tried 5d6b3 for direct comparison, but I do 4d6b3 and bump rolls up to a minimum point value if they're low. It was very useful to save a poor player who managed a 17 point buy set of rolls. It keeps the party within a reasonable range of each other, and saves the unlucky.

With 5d6b3 I'd probably feel the same need to add a similar minimum value, since an extra die wouldn't have helped that poor player much.

randomhero00
2011-05-29, 02:50 PM
not quite 5d6 but I do let my players reroll the lowest AND all ones. No matter how many times they may roll a one, they can continue to roll until they get something else. This usually ends up just right.

Essence_of_War
2011-05-29, 02:57 PM
I've used it before, but I like point buy better.

If you want a random method that is really good for people playing MAD classes, though, this isn't a bad way to go.

For reference, I've also simulated it on the computer and found that it comes out to about 38 point buy on average, and is extremely likely to be between 30 and 46 point buy. Compare with 4d6b3 which works out to 28 point buy on average, and 3d6 which averages to 16 point buy.

randomhero00
2011-05-29, 03:04 PM
Oh ya, PS I like point buy better though. Although there is something to be said for some randomness. I've been thinking about making 1/2 point buy, and half rolled.

Galileo
2011-05-29, 07:33 PM
My preferred roll is 2d6+6. Generates stats between 8-18, like pointbuy.

DonEsteban
2011-05-29, 08:01 PM
3.5 is high powered fantasy...5d6 stats (usually) reflect that a little better
I don't quite get this. All you need is a 15 in one stat. It's enough to qualify for almost any feat and by level 16 (or earlier with magic items) you'll have a 19 and can cast any spell you want or do other earth-shattering things. But I digress.

I've never done 5d6, but we did 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 7d6 in a crazy campaign once.

dsmiles
2011-05-29, 08:07 PM
I don't quite get this. All you need is a 15 in one stat. It's enough to qualify for almost any feat and by level 16 (or earlier with magic items) you'll have a 19 and can cast any spell you want or do other earth-shattering things.Yeah, technically anything above 10 is above average. I tend towards the lower power campaigns, kind of the "accidental heroes" feel, so I've done 5d6b3, but personally, I prefer 4d6b3 (or 3d6 arrange to taste).

Gurgeh
2011-05-30, 06:09 AM
For me, it depends heavily on the game. For 3.5 I usually go best three of 4d6, for 2E I tend to go "roll 3d6 twice, pick whichever of those 3d6 is better".

I always use point buy for any PBP games - it just makes things simpler.

vegetalss4
2011-05-30, 06:22 AM
an interesting method i have used a couple of times is, roll 24 dice, remove 6 worst, share the rest of the dice between the abilities as you want.

FyreByrd
2011-05-30, 06:27 AM
I don't quite get this. All you need is a 15 in one stat. It's enough to qualify for almost any feat and by level 16 (or earlier with magic items) you'll have a 19 and can cast any spell you want or do other earth-shattering things. But I digress.


5d6drop2 tends (not always obviously) but tends to make MAD classes more accessible, yes a wizard only needs a 15 in one stat, but there are a good number of classes that need at least reasonable scores in a few stat


Yeah, technically anything above 10 is above average. I tend towards the lower power campaigns, kind of the "accidental heroes" feel, so I've done 5d6b3, but personally, I prefer 4d6b3 (or 3d6 arrange to taste).

I prefer lower level <15 campaigns, but with fairly high powered heroes so 5d6drop2 works well for that...also if we end up playing gestalt it helps.

All of this is obviously just an opinion, and what works for me group best...although if I find the person that first thought that point-buy should be put in print he's in trouble...I cannot stand it!

Serpentine
2011-05-30, 06:36 AM
My default is one 18, one 8 or lower, and the rest 5d6b3. A few rerolls allowed with DM permission, interesting is preferable to powerful.
I have one idea in mind where I allow them to choose (something like, it probably changes every time I mention it...) one 8 or lower, one 9-11, one 12-13, one 13-14, one 15-16, one 17-18. Or something like that, I forget. I think only one person has ever used it, though.
If someone had a particular array of stats they had in mind for their character, and it comes out to be something reasonable, I'm willing to let them shuffle around their stats (I had an idea to let them take points from stats, and move half of them to another stat (so take 2 from one stat, add 1 to another), but I've never seen it in action), or even just make them up, although I will be sure to look at it carefully.

Solaris
2011-05-30, 06:38 AM
I've been accused of rolling 5 dice once by the other players (18, 17, 17, 17, 17, 16...*), but notmally it's been 4d6.

unless it's supposed to be a high-powered/epic progressions campaign. at which case it's 5d6

never done point buy before, might be interesting

* I wasted this on a monk:smallbiggrin:

My brother's rolled straight 18s with 4d6 (the dropped die? 5-6) twice. I finally got him to admit he could roll whatever he felt like with pretty much any dice you handed him.
And that's why I'm the DM.

Serpentine
2011-05-30, 06:40 AM
My brother's rolled straight 18s with 4d6 (the dropped die? 5-6) twice. I finally got him to admit he could roll whatever he felt like with pretty much any dice you handed him.
And that's why I'm the DM.See, that sorta character just doesn't appeal to me. I'd feel obliged to give him crippling insecurities and anxieties just to make up for it.

FelixG
2011-05-30, 08:47 AM
My preferred roll is 2d6+6. Generates stats between 8-18, like pointbuy.

This right here is the system I use as well and I have found it to be the best for my d20 groups (real and PbP)

dsmiles
2011-05-30, 09:02 AM
My brother's rolled straight 18s with 4d6 (the dropped die? 5-6) twice. I finally got him to admit he could roll whatever he felt like with pretty much any dice you handed him.
And that's why I'm the DM.I once rolled a character with 15's across the board. Back when 15's were pretty awesome (it was a 2e game). I made him a half-elf rogue (back when half-elves were pretty awesome, too).

Quietus
2011-05-30, 09:07 AM
See, that sorta character just doesn't appeal to me. I'd feel obliged to give him crippling insecurities and anxieties just to make up for it.

Yeah.. I think it would be somewhat interesting to take a straight-18 character and then flop all sorts of worries on his head. "Can I live up to what they expect of me?" "Do they hate me for the way I am?" "Are they judging me?" - I know there's plenty of people in the real world with these kinds of concerns, and I'm pretty confident that none of them have the equivalent of straight 18's.

I'd probably go for some class that can more or less do anything (Factotum maybe?), just to play up the unreasonably talented/ohgod,dotheythinkI'mshowingoff angle a bit more.

Serpentine
2011-05-30, 09:24 AM
I usually go for the "Charisma is about equal part looks, personality and self-esteem" angle, but a "no guys ever ask me out, I must be hideous!" 18 Cha could be fun.
18 Int: Always knows everything, but noone else knows or understands what they're saying, so they think they must be an idiot.
Doesn't know their own Strength and is always knocking things over and throwing things too far - but always catching it before it breaks, thanks to the 18 Dex.

Solaris
2011-05-30, 10:02 AM
I once rolled a character with 15's across the board. Back when 15's were pretty awesome (it was a 2e game). I made him a half-elf rogue (back when half-elves were pretty awesome, too).

He almost did this in 2E. 18/00, 18, 18, 15, 16, 18. When our father didn't believe it, he rolled it again. Same numbers, same order and everything. He made a paladin.

TopherKersting
2011-05-30, 11:17 AM
I always go 3d6 (HackMaster 4th), but I have joked about allowing my players to go hardcore with d16+2, giving the same 3-18 spread but without the bell curve. (The d16 is from Lou Zocchi and can be found at gamestation.net.)

Topher

spaceLem
2011-05-30, 12:42 PM
I always do 4d6 keep best 3 (I don't like point buy for D&D). To be honest, I'd be happy with 3d6. For me, the problem isn't that the scores are too low, but that the requirements are too high. If you don't have at least 15 somewhere you're unlikely to be effective (I've seen the extremes of this in 4e where people have claimed -- rightly or wrongly -- that you need to have a 20 in your primary stat).

There is a lot of reliance on high stats (from feat prerequisites to duration and strength of powers) although whether that is to encourage specialisation or part of the inflation I'm not sure. The need to be above average at everything makes for dull characters -- even the greatest heroes have some flaws.

Greylond
2011-05-30, 10:01 PM
I always go 3d6 (HackMaster 4th), but I have joked about allowing my players to go hardcore with d16+2, giving the same 3-18 spread but without the bell curve. (The d16 is from Lou Zocchi and can be found at gamestation.net.)

Topher

Yea, 3d6 makes you appreciate those rare high stats more...

Zaq
2011-05-30, 10:11 PM
I can barely remember the last time I actually rolled dice for stats. 32 or 33 PB (don't ask) is the way it ends up usually happening for me. The game's got so many chances to be imbalanced between players anyway . . . why doom it to be imbalanced before it even starts? I'd feel awful if I had straight 16s or better and I was sitting next to a friend who had 14/14/10/11/9/8 or something. If the situations were reversed, I know I'd be frustrated.

I don't care if you want to give me a low PB, even, but make it the same as everyone else. One set of good or bad rolls should not have that kind of impact for that long.

The exception is when I'm playing Kobolds Ate My Baby, of course. Then you roll 2d6, four times, in order. But your character isn't supposed to last more than a turn or two in KAMB, so there's a difference in paradigm there.

Geigan
2011-05-30, 10:53 PM
My group goes with a very simple homebrew generation method. Start with 10 in every stat and add 20 points however you see fit(not using point buy method), as long as no stat ends up higher than 18. I suppose we prefer higher power games. If I were to roll I would go 24d6 drop six lowest, arrange to tastes with 3 dice to each stat.

Serpentine
2011-05-30, 11:21 PM
I like characters in my games to have at least one true flaw or disadvantage, so a minimum of 10 really wouldn't work for me.

Geigan
2011-05-30, 11:25 PM
We do allow for taking away points, but I can see your point. Perhaps start with 8 in each, add 18 for a lower powered game. We don't like the standard point buy system because our way is simpler. Not that point buy is bad, we just prefer not having to pull up the table or a calculator.

Velaryon
2011-05-31, 12:30 AM
an interesting method i have used a couple of times is, roll 24 dice, remove 6 worst, share the rest of the dice between the abilities as you want.

I like this method since it offers a greater degree of customization than most rolling methods, and it all but guarantees you have at least one 18 if you need it.

On the other hand, my group seems to prefer high-powered games. The standard method among us is generally 4d6, reroll 1's (and sometimes 2's depending on who's DMing), and drop the lowest die. Sometimes it's also 7 rolls, keeping the 6 highest.

We have never tried simple 5d6 before, that might be good too. I've never been able to convince my group to try point buy even once, despite the fact that I like it in principle since that prevents anyone from having way better or way worse stats than everyone else.

DMClockwork
2011-05-31, 02:45 AM
C'mon guys. If your not using Method I, then you aren't really having fun. :smalltongue:

The oddest stat Gen. I've been a part of was 9d2 six times. (Grab nine coins, shake, and toss. Heads =2, Tails =1)

Necro_EX
2011-05-31, 03:03 AM
My local group has been doing this in a couple different ways. Usually we'll roll 4d6, keep the best three, but I had been doing point buy for games I ran for a while. We even rolled multiple arrays for a lot of games, the one I'm running now I had them roll 4 keep the best 3 and only the one array. Next game I run for them we'll be rolling 3d6, in order.

The point buy I was using was a little different from standard. Everything starts with a base of 4, then you would have 54 points to dump point-for-point. I found it creates overpowered characters and I kind of like the randomness of rolling.

Godskook
2011-05-31, 03:47 AM
I've got the most unusual stat-generation rules, I think:

Roll 3d6, DM supervises to makes sure the stats are 'usable'. (Generally all mods add up to at least +0), and then you may re-roll the lowest, but must keep the result.

Then, you calculate the resulting point-buy value, and through-out the campaign, you may spend xp to improve the point-buy of your stats, capped at level+30.

This allows the "PCs are different feel I prefer in my game while still allowing higher level characters 'become' PCs from time to time without breaking versimilitude. It also acts as a 'punishment' for death without requiring level-loss(Sure, you can re-roll as a Barbarian. Enjoy having 30 point-buy when the party standard is 45.) 'Course, I calculated all the formulas so I can keep track and adjust xp gains so that new PCs eventually catch up to the older ones.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-05-31, 04:58 AM
I learned AD&D on 5d6k3, unless you rolled 4 or 5 of a kind. This was actually the least munchkin thing about how that DM played the game.

I hate rolling stats. I have a knack for rolling 4d6k3 characters with high stats of 14 or lower. One time in high school I rolled a character with a high score of 8 and the DM made me play it.

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 06:37 AM
As long as we're discussing needlessly complicated stat generation, I just had a vague idea. No idea how well it'd work, though.
So. Roll 3d6 six times. The two highest for each roll are kept together, and the lowest from each can be distributed as you wish at the end.
Think it'd work?
edit: Scrap that, it sucks. How can anyone roll 3d6?! :smalleek:
Same thing, but 4d6 save top 3 redistribute lowest 1 seems like it might be alright. Testing it now.

So, I got 7, 18, 13, 12, 17 and 13, with 1, 1, 2, 3, 3 and 4 to move around.
Possible rules: only one score to each ability (so no adding the 4 and a 3 to the same score); maximum of 18 at level one (so no adding anything to the 18 - possibly incompatible with the first possible rule).
So, assuming the first optional rule but not the second, I can get 10, 22, 14, 14, 20, 14; or, perhaps, 11, 19, 16, 15, 18, 15 for a more even spread. Personally, I'd probably go for something like 8, 22, 16, 15, 18, 15.
Going with second optional rule but not the first: 7, 18, 18, 12, 18, 18; or, more reasonably: 12, 18, 16, 15, 18, 15.
Going with averages (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): 16, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12 or 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.

For comparison, my first option with averages (6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 or 12, 11, 10, 10, 9, 8.
Alternatively: 4d6, drop lowest, redistribute second lowest.

Eldan
2011-05-31, 08:31 AM
I'd think a lot of people did 3d6 for years. The assumptions about the game are just different. Instead of an 8 being a bad stat, it becomes slightly below average. A 14 is no longer expected for a secondary, but quite good. Under AD&D assumptions, as I see them (as an outsider who has never played the system) it looks like characters with 14s in their main stats were not unheard of, and not considered unplayable. It also means that a 6 is just as likely as a 15, or a 3 as an 18. PCs are now average, instead of quite a bit above it.

spaceLem
2011-05-31, 10:25 AM
I'd think a lot of people did 3d6 for years. The assumptions about the game are just different. Instead of an 8 being a bad stat, it becomes slightly below average. A 14 is no longer expected for a secondary, but quite good. Under AD&D assumptions, as I see them (as an outsider who has never played the system) it looks like characters with 14s in their main stats were not unheard of, and not considered unplayable. It also means that a 6 is just as likely as a 15, or a 3 as an 18. PCs are now average, instead of quite a bit above it.

+1

The average for humans is supposed to be 10-11, and that's what you get if you roll 3d6, (you then get beyond average by gaining XP and levelling up). If you roll 4d6k3 then your expected result is 12.2 so you'll start above average. People have come to expect this in game, because it seems to demand high scores. If you kept 3d6, reduced the prerequisites, and stated that the human average was in fact 8, then you'd start above average, but I think some people would still want to roll 4d6k3, either because they like that way of rolling, or they just see 10 as "below average", when it isn't.

While D&D relies on having higher stats, people will want higher stats because we see average as bad.

Trivia: Roll 3d6 6 times, and sort the values. Repeat a large number of times and take the average for each stat. If you round the numbers you get the 3e standard array. Do this again but rolling 4d6, and you get the 3e elite array. I think that's a pretty nice result.

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 11:00 AM
Why would the human average be 8? I've never seen that anywhere...

dsmiles
2011-05-31, 11:08 AM
Why would the human average be 8? I've never seen that anywhere...

Well, average used to be 9-12, but that's as close as I can come up with.

spaceLem
2011-05-31, 11:31 AM
Why would the human average be 8? I've never seen that anywhere...

I think you missed the point there. It's so that people could say that rolling 3d6 gave them above average stats.

If you want higher stats from 5d6k3 so that you can say you are heroic (in the "my character is better than the average human" sense, rather than the "I risk my life to help others" sense), then this gives that result.

It breaks the 10/+0 is baseline assumption, but you so rarely encounter that anyway that it's not really a useful position. The PCs should be the baseline, not commoners, unless the average PC has the same stats as the average commoner.

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 11:44 AM
But... the entire game system is based on the assumption that the average stat for your regular human is 10-11 :smallconfused:

spaceLem
2011-05-31, 11:53 AM
But... the entire game system is based on the assumption that the average stat for your regular human is 10-11 :smallconfused:

So what? You don't play regular humans, you play characters who are all round better than regular humans (on average).

People who want higher stats are either doing so for a mechanical benefit (in which case, why not fix the mechanics), or because they want to feel like they are better than regular humans (so why not set the baseline to be that of the PCs, rather than characters you'll never play?).

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 12:13 PM
Because they're based on real-world capabilities. A character with 10 Str can carry as much stuff as your average real-world person. An Int of 10 roughly approximates an IQ of 100.
You change the "average" of the stats, and you change the accepted abilities of the entire world. Suddenly all the ordinary people are significantly lesser than real-world ordinary people.
I think it's not as superficial a change as I think you think it is, is what I'm trying to say.

Lycar
2011-05-31, 05:13 PM
I'd think a lot of people did 3d6 for years. The assumptions about the game are just different. Instead of an 8 being a bad stat, it becomes slightly below average. A 14 is no longer expected for a secondary, but quite good. Under AD&D assumptions, as I see them (as an outsider who has never played the system) it looks like characters with 14s in their main stats were not unheard of, and not considered unplayable. It also means that a 6 is just as likely as a 15, or a 3 as an 18. PCs are now average, instead of quite a bit above it.
Don't forget that the way stats gave pluses was different too. I don't remember the details for all the stats, but at least in the Red Box edition, stats 8-12 was average, 13-15 gave a +1, 16-17 a +2 and only an 18 was a +3 to anything.

In other words, stats weren't that much of a big deal, except where certain classes required certain minimum scores in stats to qualify for.

Back in AD&D, being able to become a monk was a reward for rolling good stats.

The only class that didn't really have any prerequisites as far as I recall was the fighter. If you can't do anything well, pick up a stick and hit things for a living. The difference between bandits and heroes being that heroes are smart enough to only attack things that they don't get hanged for. :smallamused:

dsmiles
2011-05-31, 05:31 PM
Back in AD&D, being able to become a monk was a reward for rolling good stats.

The only class that didn't really have any prerequisites as far as I recall was the fighter. If you can't do anything well, pick up a stick and hit things for a living. The difference between bandits and heroes being that heroes are smart enough to only attack things that they don't get hanged for. :smallamused:Don't forget the Paladin. You needed, like, a 17 Charisma, or something crazy like that. But everything had prerequisites. Even Fighter. Even races. It required a Strength of 9 to be a Fighter. It was harder to be a Dwarf than it was to be a Fighter. :smallamused:

Joshinthemosh
2011-05-31, 05:59 PM
I had a DM once that rolled 5d6 for our stats with the proviso that he would reroll 1s. The array he handed us to work with was 18,16,16,16,14,12. Our 3rd level party of 4 was taking on CR 8 encounters without armor on just to be threatened. He's still very very mad about that :smallbiggrin:

But seriously I as a player love 5d6 if the DM knows ahead of time that he wants a high power world. If not the results can be jarring

kyoryu
2011-05-31, 06:55 PM
I'd think a lot of people did 3d6 for years. The assumptions about the game are just different. Instead of an 8 being a bad stat, it becomes slightly below average. A 14 is no longer expected for a secondary, but quite good. Under AD&D assumptions, as I see them (as an outsider who has never played the system) it looks like characters with 14s in their main stats were not unheard of, and not considered unplayable. It also means that a 6 is just as likely as a 15, or a 3 as an 18. PCs are now average, instead of quite a bit above it.

This.

Also, random rolls (with 3d6!) made sense in older-style games where a certain level of character death was expected. So you might have a crappy character *this* time, but soon the roles might be reversed.

This also explains a lot of MAD character classes. They were *intended* to be hard to qualify for, and thus rare.

Games in the modern style should probably just use point buy and be done with it.


Don't forget the Paladin. You needed, like, a 17 Charisma, or something crazy like that. But everything had prerequisites. Even Fighter. Even races. It required a Strength of 9 to be a Fighter. It was harder to be a Dwarf than it was to be a Fighter. :smallamused:

Nope, Thief was the dump class that had no stat prereqs. I'm pretty sure that Humans didn't have stat prereqs either.

dsmiles
2011-05-31, 07:27 PM
Nope, Thief was the dump class that had no stat prereqs. I'm pretty sure that Humans didn't have stat prereqs either.
Yeah, probably. I don't have my 1e books in front of me right now. I wasn't counting Humans as a race, though, as they were pretty much the default. Anyone could be a Human. Of course, Humans had nothing to really offer, other than unlimited advancement in any class (except Druid and Monk, which had their own level limits), and the ability to be a Paladin.

TopherKersting
2011-05-31, 07:35 PM
In 1e there were significant restrictions:

Minimum 9 STR to be a fighter
Minimum 9 INT to be a magic-user
Minimum 9 WIS to be a cleric
Minimum 9 DEX to be a thief

STR 5 or less could only be a magic-user
INT 5 or less could only be a fighter
WIS 5 or less could only be a thief
DEX 5 or less could only be a cleric
CON 5 or less could only be an illusionist
CHA 5 or less could only be an assassin

All the races except human had restrictions as well.

Topher

Godskook
2011-05-31, 10:09 PM
Because they're based on real-world capabilities. A character with 10 Str can carry as much stuff as your average real-world person. An Int of 10 roughly approximates an IQ of 100.
You change the "average" of the stats, and you change the accepted abilities of the entire world. Suddenly all the ordinary people are significantly lesser than real-world ordinary people.
I think it's not as superficial a change as I think you think it is, is what I'm trying to say.

Except sometimes, a player wants to play a Navy Seal-type character. Guess what? Navy Seals have above average stats, and to stat them with the normal array would be lacking in versimilitude. Hell, they're probably in the 40+ point-buy range.

If you're playing 'average' people in your game, have them roll 3d6 or similar. If you're playing 'above-average' people(a subset of everyone, not that everyone is above-average), then rolling 3d6 makes no sense at all.

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 10:56 PM
Except sometimes, a player wants to play a Navy Seal-type character. Guess what? Navy Seals have above average stats, and to stat them with the normal array would be lacking in versimilitude. Hell, they're probably in the 40+ point-buy range.

If you're playing 'average' people in your game, have them roll 3d6 or similar. If you're playing 'above-average' people(a subset of everyone, not that everyone is above-average), then rolling 3d6 makes no sense at all.That... doesn't contradict a single, lone thing I said, and in fact appears to be heading somewhere entirely different :smallconfused:

valadil
2011-05-31, 11:26 PM
But... the entire game system is based on the assumption that the average stat for your regular human is 10-11 :smallconfused:

This is why I stick to low-ish point buy. That's what the game is calibrated for. When we first started, we played in the 40-60 range. We did this because when we rolled, someone at the table for roll a set in that range, so we figured it was okay if we played like that. At 40-60 points, pets and summoned creatures were unusably weak. Other stuff didn't quite work right either, but the animal summons were the most noticeable. As we lowered the PB to the suggested values, Summon Nature's Ally II became a useful spell. Since we got used to that range, it never made sense to leave it.

And I still say that 28 point buy characters are more heroic than your average person. I don't know if they're Navy Seal caliber, but that's because I don't know much about the Navy Seals. A 28 point buy character can afford to start with an 18 in something. and still have some change left over for other decent stats. So long as you aren't playing a MAD character, you can absolutely afford a primary 18 and a secondary 14.

Archwizard
2011-05-31, 11:39 PM
Wow, there are a lot of insanely high stats allowed in this thread. I've never allowed more than 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste. If someone gets borked, I'll allow max 2 rerolls.

I hate point buy. Maybe it's just 25 years of rolling stats speaking, but I really just hate point buy. I love the chance of getting 3 18s. I love the chance of having a 5 (not 3 5's though!).

2E Paladin: Con 9, Str 12, Wis 13, Chr 17.

The 24d6 drop 6 seems like a really cool way to do it, I may try it in the future.

Greylond
2011-05-31, 11:40 PM
I think it is more of a challenge for someone to play a character based on 3d6, roll straight down and no rearranging. You have to role play what you get. To me it makes those high stat character even more special when you actually roll the stats. Over the years the power level of the game has incrementally increased to the point now that even suggesting you play a low stat character and people don't want to play. Some people have even looked in shock at me when I mention my preferred stat roll method(1st Edition AD&D/HM).

In other words, not EVERY character is Navy SEAL worthy, nor should they be IMO...

Archwizard
2011-05-31, 11:45 PM
I think it is more of a challenge for someone to play a character based on 3d6, roll straight down and no rearranging. You have to role play what you get. To me it makes those high stat character even more special when you actually roll the stats. Over the years the power level of the game has incrementally increased to the point now that even suggesting you play a low stat character and people don't want to play. Some people have even looked in shock at me when I mention my preferred stat roll method(1st Edition AD&D/HM).

In other words, not EVERY character is Navy SEAL worthy, nor should they be IMO...

While this is true, I think the classic method is just too limiting. Check out those Paladin requirements. Getting those stats on a 3d6 in order is just really insanely hard, and that just sucks for players that want to play Paladins. That's why I like the 4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste. It gives above average characters that aren't insane (assuming normal distribution of results) and puts those multi-req classes within reach but not common.

JonestheSpy
2011-06-01, 12:44 AM
Since this is getting into general stat creation philosophy, I'll mention my system again. It's half and half, to allow some intentional character design but keep the element of randomness. Players choose three stats for point buy, enough points to make all three good-but-not-awesome or pump one and keep one or two low to compensate. The other stats are 4D6, in order, no switching.

It's worked really well since one of my players and I came up with the concept a few years ago.

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 03:56 AM
I think it is more of a challenge for someone to play a character based on 3d6, roll straight down and no rearranging. You have to role play what you get. To me it makes those high stat character even more special when you actually roll the stats. Over the years the power level of the game has incrementally increased to the point now that even suggesting you play a low stat character and people don't want to play. Some people have even looked in shock at me when I mention my preferred stat roll method(1st Edition AD&D/HM).My brother-in-sin swears by that method. While I think it could be fun to play that in a one-off or different sort of game, or if I can't think of any character concept in advance that I'd like to play, for a normal game it doesn't work for me.
Put it this way: in this hypothetical game world, there are a billion people I could play. They already exist, I just get to choose which one I want to play. These people have their own histories, childhoods and ambitions, and they are born with their various abilities. These abilities are likely to determine - or at least influence - their careers. A borderline-mentally disabled person is highly unlikely to ever become a Wizard. They might want to be a Wizard, and it could be interesting to play such a character, but they're unlikely to be even adequate at it. Similarly, a person with muscular distrophy is probably going to have to give up his dreams to become a club-slamming Barbarian.
As a player, with the choice of the entire population of the world to play, there's a good chance that someone in the world will approximately meet my vision of the character I want to play. If I want to play a Wizard, I should be able to find a Wizard who is capable of being a Wizard. If I want to play a muscle-bound Barbarian, chances are there will be a muscle-bound Barbarian somewhere in the world. I shouldn't be forced to play something I don't want to.
So, the roll-as-it-falls system is randomly selecting someone from the game world. Point-by is tracking down the very specific individual you want to play who just happens to be exactly what you were looking for. Roll-and-place is somewhere in-between, but closer to the latter - choosing randomly from a limited pool.
Does that make sense?


I guess, more generally, I think the play-it-as-they-roll method is good if you don't already have a character concept. As I always do - and expect my players to - complete with flaws and disadvantages, it's nothing but an unnecessary restriction on and barrier to my creativity and character concept.

Eldan
2011-06-01, 04:39 AM
The thing is, you roll stats first, then select class, with those systems. So, you wouldn't get a barbarian with strength 6, because with strength 6, you wouldn't be playing a barbarian.

Or in other words: you roll what life gives you, then decide what to do with it.

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 05:50 AM
The thing is, you roll stats first, then select class, with those systems. So, you wouldn't get a barbarian with strength 6, because with strength 6, you wouldn't be playing a barbarian.

Or in other words: you roll what life gives you, then decide what to do with it.Which is pretty much what I was saying. What if I feel like playing a Barbarian? What if I have this great, in-depth, well-thought-out Barbarian character I want to play, and then my DM says I've got to do my abilities this way? Do I just get no say in what I play, more or less?
In reality, if I was in this situation I'd probably just sigh, put the Barbarian away for later, and hope the way the dice lie inspires me. But for normal play, it's definitely not my preference.

Eldan
2011-06-01, 05:59 AM
Oh, true, it's not mine either. I love elaborate backgrounds entirely too much for that.
With this method, you basically have to make up your character at the table. Question for those who played AD&D 2nd and earlier editions: how where character backgrounds handled back then? Did you roll, build your character, then come up with a handful of lines, did you write an elaborate background beforehand and hope for the best with the rolls, or did you do the writing after the construction?

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 06:03 AM
My nephew - for whom my brother-in-sin DMs - came up with a pretty great character with a lot of stuff revolving around the reason why he had such a low Charisma (something about gnolls giving him a horrible disfiguring scar or something).

some guy
2011-06-01, 06:12 AM
I have always done 4d6b3, I like rolling. But I really like the system for Gamma World 7e; you get an 18 for your main ability, a 16 for your secondary ability (20 if those abilities are the same and you roll 3d6 in order for the rest.
This way you get a character who is very good in the things he/she/it is suppossed to do, but still has random other abilities.

Eldan
2011-06-01, 06:58 AM
Heh. The only game of Gamma World I played was 4th (I think) edition.

Every race had completely different stat generations for reach stat. So, if you played, say, a parrot-man, you'd get 2d4+4 strength, 3d6-2 dexterity and 1d4+12 constitution (made up example). Then you'd get flight, random mutations chosen from a table (1d100) and only then choose a class.

That produced some really weird characters.

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 09:45 AM
Which is pretty much what I was saying. What if I feel like playing a Barbarian? What if I have this great, in-depth, well-thought-out Barbarian character I want to play, and then my DM says I've got to do my abilities this way? Do I just get no say in what I play, more or less?
In reality, if I was in this situation I'd probably just sigh, put the Barbarian away for later, and hope the way the dice lie inspires me. But for normal play, it's definitely not my preference.

Yeah, this definitely goes back to what I was saying.



Heh. The only game of Gamma World I played was 4th (I think) edition.

Every race had completely different stat generations for reach stat. So, if you played, say, a parrot-man, you'd get 2d4+4 strength, 3d6-2 dexterity and 1d4+12 constitution (made up example). Then you'd get flight, random mutations chosen from a table (1d100) and only then choose a class.

That produced some really weird characters.

I don't even remember what edition of GW I played, but it was OLD, circa 1986. I loved that world. I think stats were the same there in terms of all over the place. Definitely makes sense if you're looking for "realism".

Eldan
2011-06-01, 12:35 PM
On the other hand, it wasn't even remotely aiming for balance. "Turtleman? Here's your +8 to armour. Now roll mutations. Oh, you get twice the amount of actions per turn and a 6d6 fire breath! Okay, next player. Hmm. You get a 1d4 claw attack and your mutation is that you can't smell cheese without fainting!"

kyoryu
2011-06-01, 12:42 PM
While this is true, I think the classic method is just too limiting. Check out those Paladin requirements. Getting those stats on a 3d6 in order is just really insanely hard, and that just sucks for players that want to play Paladins.

And this is a major philosophy difference between "paleo" games and more modern games.

Paleo games did not assume you'd only have one character, EVAR, and they certainly did not assume that you'd get what you wanted. They assumed you'd have multiple characters over time, and that you'd play what you got. A lot of the fun was dealing with the random rolls, and making the best of them.

In fact, I'd argue that was the original "munchkin" distinction. Munchkins insisted everything went their way, rather than being willing to deal with the wackiness of whatever happened in the game. Lose a point in a stat? "That's not fair!" Girdle of Opposite Gender? "I don't wanna play a chick!"

Etc.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-01, 02:40 PM
Because they're based on real-world capabilities. A character with 10 Str can carry as much stuff as your average real-world person. An Int of 10 roughly approximates an IQ of 100.
You change the "average" of the stats, and you change the accepted abilities of the entire world. Suddenly all the ordinary people are significantly lesser than real-world ordinary people.
I think it's not as superficial a change as I think you think it is, is what I'm trying to say.

Only if everyone in your world is generated in that way. That's not a requirement.

Honestly, for genning NPCs, I tend to use a point buy system. I have a number of stat-sets that come out to a 32 point buy, and I grab the one that works best for the character I'm building. It's much faster than rolling each time.

dsmiles
2011-06-01, 03:06 PM
Only if everyone in your world is generated in that way. That's not a requirement.

Honestly, for genning NPCs, I tend to use a point buy system. I have a number of stat-sets that come out to a 32 point buy, and I grab the one that works best for the character I'm building. It's much faster than rolling each time.I tend to just make them up, depending on the role of the NPC, and even then only when they come up in-game. The only ones that get hard stats are the ones the characters are intended to encounter in a situation where stats and skill bonuses would matter (such as BBEGs, informants, minions, etc.).

a_humble_lich
2011-06-01, 03:20 PM
Question for those who played AD&D 2nd and earlier editions: how where character backgrounds handled back then? Did you roll, build your character, then come up with a handful of lines, did you write an elaborate background beforehand and hope for the best with the rolls, or did you do the writing after the construction?

Well, for one thing I'm not sure how much the 3d6 in order rolling was actually used. Even way back in the first edition DMG it recommends using one of four alternate score generating methods (4d6 is one, 3d6 12 times and keep the highest, etc). Also, I think the more elaborate backgrounds are more common now. When I started playing, there wasn't much more to character's backgrounds other than class and race. Third, stats were in some ways less important than they are now. In 1st/2nd ed. most stats needed to be at least 15 to get any bonuses, thus you're only getting bonuses on a couple stats. (Now the red box D&D was different, but it was also much less common and I have less experience playing it).

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 04:01 PM
Well, for one thing I'm not sure how much the 3d6 in order rolling was actually used. Even way back in the first edition DMG it recommends using one of four alternate score generating methods (4d6 is one, 3d6 12 times and keep the highest, etc). Also, I think the more elaborate backgrounds are more common now. When I started playing, there wasn't much more to character's backgrounds other than class and race. Third, stats were in some ways less important than they are now. In 1st/2nd ed. most stats needed to be at least 15 to get any bonuses, thus you're only getting bonuses on a couple stats. (Now the red box D&D was different, but it was also much less common and I have less experience playing it).

Back in the good old Red Box days, 3d6 in order was the way it was done. Granted, as it is now, some DMs let you reroll, or swap, etc. AD&D acknowledged what was becoming a more common method: 4d6, drop 1.

As far as "backgrounds", I'm pretty sure those were new to 3E. I never had any book-based background stuff before that, and certainly no mechanical effect in the RAW.

In 2E, you got XP (10% bonus) if your prime stat(s) was(were) 16+. You also got XP for doing things your class was supposed to do, e.g. thieves picking locks and wizards blasting baddies with fireballs.

Edit: And going back to Gamma World for a second, the books I have are (c) 1983!

kyoryu
2011-06-01, 04:53 PM
Well, for one thing I'm not sure how much the 3d6 in order rolling was actually used. Even way back in the first edition DMG it recommends using one of four alternate score generating methods (4d6 is one, 3d6 12 times and keep the highest, etc).

I'll vouch for this, having just read it last night.

I don't even think 3d6, in order, was a suggested option at all.

Greylond
2011-06-01, 06:42 PM
Again, like I said, it's the challenge of being able to play what you roll. Going into a game I usually have 3 or 4( or even more) basic character concepts that can be adapted to no matter what I roll.

I got bored with be able to play anything, anytime I wanted. IMO, anyone can play a character that they want to play be just by spending points. That's too easy. Someone who is a really good roleplayer would have fun and be able to play a wide range of characters and go with random rolls.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-06-01, 08:49 PM
The first time I ever played (4th Grade at an overnight that we knew we'd never play again) we rolled d20s for all of are stats. If any of them were below 10, we doubled the stat. Free assignment of course.

Melayl
2011-06-01, 09:36 PM
Oh, true, it's not mine either. I love elaborate backgrounds entirely too much for that.
With this method, you basically have to make up your character at the table. Question for those who played AD&D 2nd and earlier editions: how where character backgrounds handled back then? Did you roll, build your character, then come up with a handful of lines, did you write an elaborate background beforehand and hope for the best with the rolls, or did you do the writing after the construction?

When I first started we did 3d6 in order and made things up after we had the stats. It was kinda fun, but not fun to do every time.

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 10:12 PM
Someone who is a really good roleplayer would have fun and be able to play a wide range of characters and go with random rolls.I could do it, and if I was really strapped for character ideas I might even voluntarily do it. But I'm not strapped for character ideas, and I want to be able to actually use them.

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 10:53 PM
When I first started we did 3d6 in order and made things up after we had the stats. It was kinda fun, but not fun to do every time.


I could do it, and if I was really strapped for character ideas I might even voluntarily do it. But I'm not strapped for character ideas, and I want to be able to actually use them.

Amen.

Meh 10 min.

LibraryOgre
2011-06-02, 04:13 PM
3d6 in order is definitely an experience; in fact, Hackmaster Basic doesn't make it a requirement, but DOES give you bonus build points for not moving your in-order roll. A dwarven Wizard is almost impossible to play without rolling a good intelligence on the in-order rolls, because it costs more BP to be a dwarven wizard instead of, say, an elven or human one.

Greylond
2011-06-02, 05:26 PM
Right, the new HM gives you some options but heavily rewards you for doing the 3d6 In Order. So far every character I've made has been like that...

Knaight
2011-06-02, 05:57 PM
As far as "backgrounds", I'm pretty sure those were new to 3E. I never had any book-based background stuff before that, and certainly no mechanical effect in the RAW.
The notion of building the character you want, with the history and personality that would entail is an old one. GURPS came out in 1986, and operates off this principle, and it isn't the first to do so.


I got bored with be able to play anything, anytime I wanted. IMO, anyone can play a character that they want to play be just by spending points. That's too easy. Someone who is a really good roleplayer would have fun and be able to play a wide range of characters and go with random rolls.
Sure, they could. Of course, characters built together with backgrounds, motivations, etc. all interwoven with each other and the setting allow a different sort of fun than randomly made characters plopped down in a setting, and the fact that one can do the second doesn't make the first inferior.

dsmiles
2011-06-02, 06:18 PM
The notion of building the character you want, with the history and personality that would entail is an old one. GURPS came out in 1986, and operates off this principle, and it isn't the first to do so.
Sounds about right. I first started playing AD&D in 1983, and the first time I remember writing even a few sentences of background was in '87-ish. :smalleek: (I'm old.)

Eric Tolle
2011-06-02, 06:43 PM
Back in the good old Red Box days, 3d6 in order was the way it was done.

Actually, it was more like "Roll 3D6 in order, then roll 3D6 in order again, and again, and again...hey, that die is tipped, let's tip it properly so it's a six.

And then some of us got ambitious and made BASIC programs on our old Commodore's and Pets to automate the whole process, including suggesting what class was the best, rolling hit points, and all that. It took about 20 minutes to load the programs with a tape drive, but that print out sheet with hundreds of potential characters made it worth it.

And then after picking out the best character, and equipping him and maybe even naming him, in the first five minutes of the game the GM used that damn home brew random encounter sheet he made where EVERYTHING had an equal chance of appearing, and everybody in the party was killed by a lich. Damn.


The notion of building the character you want, with the history and personality that would entail is an old one. GURPS came out in 1986, and operates off this principle, and it isn't the first to do so.

Superhero 2044 came out in 1977. It was really crude, but it was basically a simple point-buy system.

And really, the notion of building the character one wants is even older; all one needed to do was roll the dice enough times. :smalltongue:

Geigan
2011-06-02, 07:55 PM
Having gotten into a new game recently I've found another method. Roll 3d6, drop the lowest and add 6, arrange to tastes. Strange, and tends to come up with high scores across the board, albeit with no defining score.

I think it's because the DM is trying to make us less fragile. He's been trying to learn and can't seem to get balance on encounters down so he's trying to make us as sturdy as possible while he figures it out.

Archwizard
2011-06-02, 10:02 PM
As far as "backgrounds", I'm pretty sure those were new to 3E. I never had any book-based background stuff before that, and certainly no mechanical effect in the RAW.


The notion of building the character you want, with the history and personality that would entail is an old one. GURPS came out in 1986, and operates off this principle, and it isn't the first to do so.


Sure, they could. Of course, characters built together with backgrounds, motivations, etc. all interwoven with each other and the setting allow a different sort of fun than randomly made characters plopped down in a setting, and the fact that one can do the second doesn't make the first inferior.

You fundamentally misunderstand my point. Sure, giving yourself a background is oldsauce (who doesn't do this?!?). The RAW saying "here are a bunch of pre-made backgrounds with mechanical in-game benefits" was new to 3E for D&D (I think. While I did play Ravenloft, FR and some DL, I couldn't stand Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and just never played certain other settings such as OA, so what those RAW had in them, I don't know.)

Archwizard
2011-06-02, 10:04 PM
Sounds about right. I first started playing AD&D in 1983, and the first time I remember writing even a few sentences of background was in '87-ish. :smalleek: (I'm old.)

Nah, you're not that old. I started playing D&D in 1984, so you can't be old, because that would mean I'm old....:smallwink:

Knaight
2011-06-02, 10:39 PM
You fundamentally misunderstand my point. Sure, giving yourself a background is oldsauce (who doesn't do this?!?). The RAW saying "here are a bunch of pre-made backgrounds with mechanical in-game benefits" was new to 3E for D&D (I think. While I did play Ravenloft, FR and some DL, I couldn't stand Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and just never played certain other settings such as OA, so what those RAW had in them, I don't know.)

And you are fundamentally missing the point of backgrounds as used prior. It has nothing to do with a handful of feats that see next to no use, and everything to do with being able to pick classes, pick ability scores, so on and so forth with a character who had a background. A desert nomad who left the mercantile life in pursuit of riches is a valid character concept, if only the barest framework. Yet, without rolling decently for constitution in the 3d6 roll down method, even that much is out, as life as a desert nomad means one has a level of endurance. Say another detail is added, a fascination with all the different cultures seen, and a brief stint of what is essentially nationalism that drove interest in various architectural projects in the desert. Well, now a level of intelligence is needed, or just language and knowledge skills. Of course, under 3d6 roll down, the odds of actually getting to play this character just got kicked downwards again. And it is nowhere near finished.

It was that one could realize a character background in the system that was being referred to, and that is certainly not new to 3e. I cited GURPS, later Superhero 2044 was mentioned, even in 2e building so as not to be able to do this was a huge mistake. 3e marked D&D finally catching up to the early 1980's in this regard, which is simply pathetic when one considers when it was published.

Hida Reju
2011-06-02, 11:36 PM
I have done both 5D6 and 4D6 but in both cases rerolled 1's.

Most interesting variant I played was each stat had a base of 8 and you rolled a D12 and placed them in any order you want. But it was a super heroic kinda of D&D game with a lot of possible player death involved.

Another one for D&D I played with one time used point buy but instead of the D20 version it used a straight point value of 80 but you had to buy up from zero so to get an 8 in all 6 stats you had to spend 48 of those points. Max to start was 22 in one stat and then if you wanted you could have 18 in any other. Made for some interesting combinations.

jmelesky
2011-06-03, 01:39 AM
3e marked D&D finally catching up to the early 1980's in this regard, which is simply pathetic when one considers when it was published.

To be fair, D&D had actually caught up before then with the Skills & Powers stuff (aka 2.5e). But i agree with your point overall.