Rolling for scores: Who does it?

[LanSlyde]

Pretty much what the title says. I've see plenty of threads here discussing point buys and I was wanting to get opinions on why in the world people would choose point buy over actually rolling for their ability scores. I personally roll for mine every chance I get.

[AlanBruce]

I'm with you here too. When I played 2nd edition, and well up until today playing 3.5, my group has always been "brought up" with idea of rolling for your attributes. Yes, many say it creates an unbalanced PC. I like to look at it more as a challenge of sorts. Of course, there's always items and spells that can permanently raise your stats, but I find the thrill of rolling those dice at character creation priceless.

[GenghisDon]

I /we do. I prefer it, although I have played plenty of PB also. About an 80/20 split for us.

I know why some don't like to roll...they are "unlucky". Probably every group has this archetypal player. Always seems to roll poorly. Prefers a spell caster because he/she can roll attacks less often.

Others in our group howl like dogs when forced to PB, though.

[Flickerdart]

{{scrubbed}}

[LanSlyde]

I'm with you here too. When I played 2nd edition, and well up until today playing 3.5, my group has always been "brought up" with idea of rolling for your attributes. Yes, many say it creates an unbalanced PC. I like to look at it more as a challenge of sorts. Of course, there's always items and spells that can permanently raise your stats, but I find the thrill of rolling those dice at character creation priceless.

Indeed, to be perfectly honest I unless the rolls were absolutely horrible I have never seen a pointbuy outshine stat rolls. Unbalanced is a relative term, if one PC as an 18, a 9, and a random assortment of other +10scores I really don't see it as unbalanced. He's really good in one aspect, ok in others, and is lacking in one more. If everyone else rolled something similar then I wouldn't feel bad about having a character that is better than average.

[GenghisDon]

{Scrubbed}

[Absol197]

I can understand why some people prefer Point-Buy, but for me and my group(s), it just isn't the same. We always set a minimum total ability modifier, and if you roll under that you can re-roll, so nobody's character is ever under-powered.

And, like you said, the thrill of rolling is much too fun to pass up!

[demigodus]

but I find the thrill of rolling those dice at character creation priceless.

In my case, I tend to play with character concepts that can operate with moderate stats. High stats are good, but not necessary. However, low stats can end up being crippling, or mandating cheese, which, while I CAN do, I dislike to do given the groups I'm with.

So in my case I don't feel a thrill when creating characters. I just feel a dread of "what if I do badly". That is why I prefer point buy, because I find not having that dread over me to be priceless.

Yes, this isn't a direct response to you. I'm more or less just quoting you because I figured your view point (Enjoy rolling because of the thrill of it) gives a contrast to mine (Dislike rolling because the dread it brings).

[Morithias]

I roll for stats in the same way a rogue rolls for opening a lock. Aka I take 20.

I basically spam the auto-roller over and over until I get something I like, I figure if my character is too powerful my friends will just tell me to lower some stats.

Ironically when my one friend said "You can reroll as much as you want" I tried to argue with him that in theory I could just "take 18", but he shot me down with "then roll it, roll over and over until you get it".

So now I spam the roller over and over. I figure if it's too powerful they'll just tell me to stop.

[jaybird]

Didn't we JUST have a bloody thread on this?

[Slipperychicken]

{{scrubbed}}

This is, more or less, my feelings on the matter.

[Spuddles]

My groups all roll 3 arrays, choose best array, because we have more fun with it. Plus DnD wouldn't be DnD without at least a little bit of random chance making critical decisions.

[EccentricCircle]

I insist on rolling in my games, I'm more than happy for players to roll up a couple of sets of stats and choose which ones they like, and we have a general reroll any ones rule. So on balance I think it works out with good stats most times.

[Urpriest]

Rolling is fun, provided there's a decent cushion against a really crippling setup. But that said, the D&D 3.5 rulebooks see most of their use these days in online discussions, and for that sort of thing point buy is vastly superior, since is creates a fairly even playing field for discussion.

[Wonton]

I always roll. I hate seeing that typical "18 16 14 10 10 10" array people always use when it's point buy. Makes every character feel generic. If the stats you roll are terrible and you're well below, just go to your DM and say so. This is D&D after all, dice rolls are not sacred and set in stone - as my sig says, having fun should be above all else.

My current PF character rolled the following, for example: 17 15 14 13 12 11
My other characters have had a few 18s (and one 5... THAT was a fun one to roleplay).

[Flickerdart]

And I get flamed & mod warnings every time I dare hint at impuning optimization, but if one rolls for scores they are rediculous. This site is AWESOME. fair & balanced like fox news



I wouldn't care, but holy one sidedness batman!
The OP asked for opinions on why people might choose point buy over rolling. I gave him some of mine. Why you would have a problem with this is beyond me.

[demigodus]

I can understand why some people prefer Point-Buy, but for me and my group(s), it just isn't the same. We always set a minimum total ability modifier, and if you roll under that you can re-roll, so nobody's character is ever under-powered.

And, like you said, the thrill of rolling is much too fun to pass up!

Sometimes the problem with rolled stats isn't the poor total ability modifier part.

For example, in my second game ever, we rolled stats (2e), and I got a Druid with a 4 (put in int, as it was the only dump stat really), and an 18 (put in wis since it was my main stat). I literally could not roleplay that intelligence without there being problems. For one, what falls under Wisdom, and what falls under Intelligence is poorly defined. So anything that remotely resembles a borderline case, whether my stats indicated I should be a bumbling idiot who is utterly clueless, or completely brilliant in my decisions, differed from person to person in opinion.

One thing we agreed on, is that intelligence governed how well one could speak. Sadly, precedent was set by one of our English majors with an 8 int character, with him dropping certain parts of the sentence all the time. Now, 4 int in 2e translated to 1 short of "semi-intelligent", but 1 point over "animal intelligence". If I ever tried to roleplay my character speaking the way he should, I literally gave that player a headache.

And yet, if you had put those stats into 3.5, and given a total ability modifier, it would have been pretty decent. Roll-playing wise, the character was very easy to do/powerful. Role-playing wise, the character was a total nightmare.

Another time, in a 3.5 game, I rolled a 3 for a stat (hey, it has a 1 in 1296 chance of happening on any roll, and you make 6 rolls for each character. Bound to happen eventually). My total ability modifier, was, once again, pretty decent. Good enough that by the reroll rules, I would definitely not be qualified for a rerolling. Yet a 3 is either a role-playing nightmare (if put in a mental stat), or mandates going caster (if put into a physical stat) due to how bad that makes me up close and physical. I ended up dumping it in con and going undead so I didn't have to mess around with it.

In neither case was it an issue of the total ability modifier being bad. In one of those cases, it wasn't even an issue of unplayability, roll-playing wise (I wanted to go Druid anyways), and in the other case, it was an easy fix roll-playing wise. In both cases, stat rolling simply led to a role-playing nightmare.

Now, there is a very good chance that my groups simply handled those situations poorly. Out of curiosity, how would your groups have handled them? But really, it is mostly those cases that makes me dislike rolled stats. They are much more likely to force me to roll-play then point buy. Though that might just be me being a poor role-player.

[killem2]

We do. 5d6 for life. :D

[LanSlyde]

{{scrubbed}}

I can see your point, but as I said earlier rolling for scores usually ends with having much higher numbers than you would with a typical point buy. yeah, you don't get to be as precise with your numbers as you might like, but more than likely you really complain all that much when you end up at least a 10 in all stats.

[LanSlyde]

We do. 5d6 for life. :D

lol, our group rolls 4d6, drop the lowest, turn the lowest to a 6.

so with a roll of 1,3,2,6 we would end with a 6, 3, 6. The chances of anyone ending up with negatives to their ability scores is minimal.

[Daftendirekt]

Rolling for scores is by and far the norm on the forums here. However, The couple times I've tried my hand at DMing here I've done point buy. Also, in my actual tabletop group we've always done point-buy. Rolling for scores simply allows for far too much variance in ability score quality between players.

[demigodus]

{Scrubbed}

People merely stat that they prefer not to roll stats.

You straight out insult people who optimize. You don't hint at it.

If people were to use insulting words to describe those that roll for stats, or question their mental status, they would be getting flamed & mod warnings too.


I can see your point, but as I said earlier rolling for scores usually ends with having much higher numbers than you would with a typical point buy.


lol, our group rolls 4d6, drop the lowest, turn the lowest to a 6.

so with a roll of 1,3,2,6 we would end with a 6, 3, 6. The chances of anyone ending up with negatives to their ability scores is minimal.

The standard point buy is 4d6, drop lowest. I think the reason you tend to end up with a higher total then with standard point-buy (defined as 25 in DMG, usually considered as 28 or so by people that actually did the math) is because of your method for rolling, rather then because the concept of rolling is inherently better.

Still, have to admit, that is an interesting system. Lowest stat possible is an 8 (at a 1/1296 chance), and a ~13% (171/1296) chance of any individual roll being an 18.

Seems like it would indeed generally guarantee at least playable stats.

[aphoticConniver]

Both myself and my entire playgroup prefer rolling, but we happen to be a more fluid sort of gamer. We are all decently alike when it comes to adaptability, so even if we have a goal in mind when rolling (say, wizard) and Int comes up low and Cha comes up high, he's a Sorcerer. Then again, we also happen to be one of the most underoptimized groups... so grains of salt may need to be taken.

[eggs]

I like rolling for stats. Point buy just feels to sterile.

[LanSlyde]

The standard point buy is 4d6, drop lowest. I think the reason you tend to end up with a higher total then with standard point-buy (defined as 25 in DMG, usually considered as 28 or so by people that actually did the math) is because of your method for rolling, rather then because the concept of rolling is inherently better.

Still, have to admit, that is an interesting system. Lowest stat possible is an 8 (at a 1/1296 chance), and a ~13% (171/1296) chance of any individual roll being an 18.

Seems like it would indeed generally guarantee at least playable stats.

Thank you. |^_^|

We do this because we generally like our heros of the story to actually have the ability to pull off dungeon delving/ undead smiting. I mean seriously, anyone who ends up with at least half their scores in the negatives should roll commoner and just farm all day. :smallwink:

[Blisstake]

Didn't we JUST have a bloody thread on this?

Probably, but topics like these tend to get locked when people start insisting there's only one way to play the game.

Personally, I enjoy both methods. I think rolling (with leeway for re-rolls) works better in my RL games, while PB works better for the forums since you might only get the people who rolled the best during recruitment.

[Flickerdart]

I can see your point, but as I said earlier rolling for scores usually ends with having much higher numbers than you would with a typical point buy. yeah, you don't get to be as precise with your numbers as you might like, but more than likely you really complain all that much when you end up at least a 10 in all stats.
It's not about bigger numbers. I have enough system mastery to make the numbers I want to go up, go up. It's about creating a good foundation for roleplaying, meaning that I, not happenstance, have to be in control of my character's strengths and weaknesses.

[umbergod]

Pretty much what the title says. I've see plenty of threads here discussing point buys and I was wanting to get opinions on why in the world people would choose point buy over actually rolling for their ability scores. I personally roll for mine every chance I get.

I was taught with rolling, but see the merits of point buy. It makes sure the party has no glaring disparities ability score wise.

[LanSlyde]

It's not about bigger numbers. I have enough system mastery to make the numbers I want to go up, go up. It's about creating a good foundation for roleplaying, meaning that I, not happenstance, have to be in control of my character's strengths and weaknesses.

I can see your point here, but isn't D&D based entirely off happenstance?

[Spuddles]

Both myself and my entire playgroup prefer rolling, but we happen to be a more fluid sort of gamer. We are all decently alike when it comes to adaptability, so even if we have a goal in mind when rolling (say, wizard) and Int comes up low and Cha comes up high, he's a Sorcerer. Then again, we also happen to be one of the most underoptimized groups... so grains of salt may need to be taken.

You roll stats down the line? That's old shool.

[demigodus]

I can see your point here, but isn't D&D based entirely off happenstance?

Not exactly.

We don't roll for feats. We don't roll for race. We don't roll for class. Yes, we roll for attack rolls. However, we don't roll to decide IF we make an attack roll. Most spells involve some rolling, but we don't roll to decide which spell we cast.

We roll in skill checks, but we can boost skills high enough that some checks become auto-successes.

D&D is about balancing rolling and player choice. Sometimes chance is good, sometimes deterministic is good, sometimes whatever the player wants happens is good. Different people draw the line at different points of when they prefer which to govern the results.

The important thing to remember, is that if you are playing a game that at all resembles 3.5 DnD, all 3 of those situations are going to pop up at some point. You can argue all you want about what should fall under which category (probably without much success in convincing people if they are already having fun with their games... after all, having fun is more important than playing right), but once you start arguing that only one of those 3 should govern every aspect of the game you have gone beyond homebrewing, to playing an entirely different system.

[LanSlyde]

Not exactly.

We don't roll for feats. We don't roll for race. We don't roll for class. Yes, we roll for attack rolls. However, we don't roll to decide IF we make an attack roll. Most spells involve some rolling, but we don't roll to decide which spell we cast.

We roll in skill checks, but we can boost skills high enough that some checks become auto-successes.

D&D is about balancing rolling and player choice. Sometimes chance is good, sometimes deterministic is good, sometimes whatever the player wants happens is good. Different people draw the line at different points of when they prefer which to govern the results.

The important thing to remember, is that if you are playing a game that at all resembles 3.5 DnD, all 3 of those situations are going to pop up at some point. You can argue all you want about what should fall under which category (probably without much success in convincing people if they are already having fun with their games... after all, having fun is more important than playing right), but once you start arguing that only one of those 3 should govern every aspect of the game you have gone beyond homebrewing, to playing an entirely different system.

A valid point. My curiosity is satisfied.

[Water_Bear]

I like Point Buy as a Player, and will request a low Point Buy rather than using a rolling method which will on average will come out higher. This is mainly just because I like to make my characters beforehand and fine-tune their builds; if I had to build a whole character in 30mins before a game I would never be able to make the connection which lets me get into their heads and understand them.

As a DM I have been plagued by really blatant cheaters, and am just sick to death of watching everyone's rolls. That and I have a strict "come in with a finished character sheet or don't play" rule, because eating 1-2 hours out of the first session of a campaign for char-gen is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

I get where people are coming from with rolled stats; they will usually have a higher total value and a wider distribution than a Point Buy, and it's less accounting. But for me personally, rolling stats is like slamming my fingers in a car door only less entertaining.

[GenghisDon]

I have to admit, I too, have come to LOATHE the time wasted on char gen in the traditional, around the table manner.

I still prefer rolled scores though, so doing them ahead of time sometimes works.

[Mari01]

I'm currently in a situation similar to this. My DM had the grand idea of going back to the old school character gen method in a Pathfinder game without telling us. So we show up to roll stats (which I already didn't really like since I'm the one who always ends up being a peasant next to Superman). The character concept I had was completely unplayable. Meanwhile, the others get to play the person they wanted. I outright refused and still do refuse to play if I have to play something that I don't like or that cripples me from day one.

[Eldonauran]

I tend to a little bit of both point buy and rolling.

Going old school? 3d6, in order

Normal game, everyone know what they are doing? -> 4d6 drop lowest

Newbies in the group? -> point buy

High powered game, optimization heavy? -> 1d8+10


Personally, I dont care how the scores are determined. I get my stats and build my character around them. My character takes shape from the chaos that spawned it and I end up loving it more. Like a artist with a stone, seeing the shape within it. You work with what you get and marvel at the hidden beauty you bring out of it.

:smallamused: That's how 'I roll'

[LanSlyde]

I like Point Buy as a Player, and will request a low Point Buy rather than using a rolling method which will on average will come out higher. This is mainly just because I like to make my characters beforehand and fine-tune their builds; if I had to build a whole character in 30mins before a game I would never be able to make the connection which lets me get into their heads and understand them.

As a DM I have been plagued by really blatant cheaters, and am just sick to death of watching everyone's rolls. That and I have a strict "come in with a finished character sheet or don't play" rule, because eating 1-2 hours out of the first session of a campaign for char-gen is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

I get where people are coming from with rolled stats; they will usually have a higher total value and a wider distribution than a Point Buy, and it's less accounting. But for me personally, rolling stats is like slamming my fingers in a car door only less entertaining.

Baus I have to say, if I caught someone cheating I would probably end up murdering their character. No one enjoys getting taken out by LanSlydes LandSlide.

[GenghisDon]

I tend to a little bit of both point buy and rolling.

Going old school? 3d6, in order

Normal game, everyone know what they are doing? -> 4d6 drop lowest

Newbies in the group? -> point buy

High powered game, optimization heavy? -> 1d8+10


Personally, I dont care how the scores are determined. I get my stats and build my character around them. My character takes shape from the chaos that spawned it and I end up loving it more. Like a artist with a stone, seeing the shape within it. You work with what you get and marvel at the hidden beauty you bring out of it.

:smallamused: That's how 'I roll'

I approve heartily of this post:smallbiggrin:

3d6 is REALLY old school...beyond my group's ability to handle I'm afraid.

[LanSlyde]

I'm currently in a situation similar to this. My DM had the grand idea of going back to the old school character gen method in a Pathfinder game without telling us. So we show up to roll stats (which I already didn't really like since I'm the one who always ends up being a peasant next to Superman). The character concept I had was completely unplayable. Meanwhile, the others get to play the person they wanted. I outright refused and still do refuse to play if I have to play something that I don't like or that cripples me from day one.

This ^^, while I enjoy rolling for stats I despise being railroaded. Reminds me of the time I forced into helping assassins murder one of my own party members. At the time none of us actually knew in-game who each other were. So I stole the keys to every room at the in, snuck into his while he was sleeping, poured acid on his blade, cut the leather straps on his armor, crushed the acid vials and dumped the glass (and what acid remained) into his shoes, stole all of his easily concealable gear, barricaded his door from the outside, and lit the inn on fire.

Needless to say, he died. Apparently the assassins were meant to fail and nothing bad would have actually happened. The DM at the time was not happy with me. I told him not to try and make me do something I don't want to do and this type of thing wont happen.



I get my stats and build my character around them. My character takes shape from the chaos that spawned it and I end up loving it more. Like a artist with a stone, seeing the shape within it. You work with what you get and marvel at the hidden beauty you bring out of it.

:smallamused: That's how 'I roll'

^^ This guy, he understands it.:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

One of my groups rolls, (4d6b3 reroll 1s) but if too many of the numbers still come out below 14 we'll generally get do-overs anyway. So it works out in practice to just being a mid-high point-buy.

I guess what I'm saying is that rolling is fine, as long as there is a safety net for the characters that end up with crappy scores. If there isn't, the DM would get the entertaining experience of watching me eat my sheet.

[LanSlyde]

One of my groups rolls, (4d6b3 reroll 1s) but if too many of the numbers still come out below 14 we'll generally get do-overs anyway. So it works out in practice to just being a mid-high point-buy.

I guess what I'm saying is that rolling is fine, as long as there is a safety net for the characters that end up with crappy scores. If there isn't, the DM would get the entertaining experience of watching me eat my sheet.

I would pass you the hot sauce. :smalltongue::smallwink:

[Spuddles]

One of my groups rolls, (4d6b3 reroll 1s) but if too many of the numbers still come out below 14 we'll generally get do-overs anyway. So it works out in practice to just being a mid-high point-buy.

I guess what I'm saying is that rolling is fine, as long as there is a safety net for the characters that end up with crappy scores. If there isn't, the DM would get the entertaining experience of watching me eat my sheet.

Ohhh that last bit gave me a good chuckle :smallbiggrin:

[Devmaar]

I guess what I'm saying is that rolling is fine, as long as there is a safety net for the characters that end up with crappy scores. If there isn't, the DM would get the entertaining experience of watching me eat my sheet.

Do you at least season it?

Personally, I prefer point buy because I tend to think of a character before I start anything. I often don't think about the ability scores before I have most/all of the levels, feats or even skills worked out

[GnomeGninjas]

I like point buy because I like to have as much control over my character as possible. I'm fine with rolling if that's what the DM requests though if I get a choice then I'll probably choose point buy or an array. Rolling is nice for not needing to decrease something useful to give your character a decent charisma score though.

[Menteith]

I generally prefer a point buy, but I'm willing to roll for it so long as there's a reasonable system in place. An interesting idea that cropped up in the last thread was to allow players to choose the result of any array rolled by another player if they wanted.

[Korivan]

never once used anything else then rolling. Don't think anyone else in my group uses anything other then rolling either.

[Mithril Leaf]

I almost exclusively use point buy, unless the DM specifies otherwise. I'm personally very much an optimizer, and being able to tweak every stat properly lets me make the character I want. However, I'm also the one that makes most of the rest of the groups sheet, and it's much quicker for me to give them a set of points instead of taking the time to make a bunch of rolls and rerolls to get them up to par. It also probably has to do with the fact that I almost always play a race with racial modifiers, so it gets me more scores overall when I can put a 14 in my gnome's constitution instead of a 16.

[Kymriana]

I cut my P&P gaming teeth on GURPS, so I was 'raised' to be very much in total control of all aspects of my character down to what points I spent on things like quirks and habits. The idea of randomly rolling what my character would be like just makes me cringe in a 'control freak' kind of way... though I have lightened up on my recoiling to a more dignified 'no-thank-you-unless-the-GM-makes-me' attitude.

Our current game we had Point Buy. Until 'stuff happened' and I ended up getting blown up and reincarnated. GM helped me write up the new sheet and then had me roll stats... to which I bristled a bit. The catch was he also privately rolled stats up behind his shield and then offered me a choice: My rolls or His.

I went with mine.

He said 'Good choice.'

Yikes. :(

Either way, I think it is more a comfort of the group and playstyle. Point Buy and Rolling, both are perfectly valid, it all just goes with what people prefer personally. I am a control freak with my characters... so I PREFER point buy. I can accept rolling, provided it is done fairly and the GM doesn't screw players over if they have dice that just really really hate them.

[maximus25]

Never done a point buy.

I don't like the idea of it as much, rolling feels much more natural and fun.

[umbergod]

One of my groups rolls, (4d6b3 reroll 1s) but if too many of the numbers still come out below 14 we'll generally get do-overs anyway. So it works out in practice to just being a mid-high point-buy.

I guess what I'm saying is that rolling is fine, as long as there is a safety net for the characters that end up with crappy scores. If there isn't, the DM would get the entertaining experience of watching me eat my sheet.

that groups rolling system is exactly how I was brought up, even though I began with 2nd edition. it was always how they did it, so its how I ended up doing it for a long time.

[Manly Man]

If your group can't decide on whether to do point buy or rolls, those of you who are familiar with the series Wizardry can use their particular method. Each race has points divided between all their stats, how few they may be, and then gets 6d10 to allocate on a one-for-one basis, no single ability score going ten higher than their base score.

[TomPokenutter]

I rolled all the time back before I played 4th. I recently started doing it again, and it's actually a lot more interesting than I remember- for example, you can generally see what's going to be a dump stat a mile away, but planing what goes where with racial modifiers becomes a lot more important. Do I save my Swashbuckler's high rolls exclusively for class-important stats? Or do I sacrifice one to try and overcome his racial Strength penalty? You don't often come across these questions with point buy or standard arrays, mostly because the important stats are most often given preferential treatment.

Oh, and you can't (usually) end up with two 18s and a 16 via point buy.

[Eldonauran]

I approve heartily of this post:smallbiggrin:

3d6 is REALLY old school...beyond my group's ability to handle I'm afraid.


^^ This guy, he understands it.:smallbiggrin:

Thanks! Good to know I am amoungst kindred souls. :smallwink:

I did fail to mention one other time I use point buy. Usually when I am joining a group part of the way in and they need a particular role filled or i am given enough time in advance to come up with a concept.

Due to the innumerable amount of options available in 3.5e, I'd rather fate (or luck :smallbiggrin:) put me on a path to follow and explore. I love random ability generation.

[LordBlades]

32 PB all the way :smallcool:

I dislike rolling for several reasons:

-I don't think one (or 6) instance(s) of randomness should have permanent effects on a character. Even dying due to a bad dice roll is fixable with enough cash, but poor stat rolls are there for your character's entire existence.

-I like playing the character I want to play, not having stats dictate what kind of effective character I could make. If I want to play a wizard for example and I roll 14 14 14 14 14 14 I'd be quite disappointed. Same if I want to play a paladin and roll 18 10 10 10 10 10.

-It creates unevenness among the players. Sooner or later somebody will roll significantly better than somebody else, and that may breed frustration.

[MachineWraith]

I usually prefer point buy, just because it guarantees a certain level of equality among the players.

However, if somebody in a campaign I'm running wants to roll, I give them 4d6b3 reroll 1s. I have to witness the rolls, and if you don't like the result, you can use the point buy instead.

[hoverfrog]

Point buy creates an equality of ability scores in a group so that one player doesn't sit their moaning that his highest score is a 16 and his other scores are all average while the player next to him crows that his lowest score is a 14 and he's got two 18s. You can mitigate this somewhat by changing the die rolls to 6+3d6b2 or even 10+2d4 or some other combination but a point buy will force an equality so that their is no griping or crowing.

Where's the fun in that though. Playing a PC with some dreadful scores is part of the fun of playing whether that's a stupid fighter or an feeble wizard. I mean who hasn't had a the pleasure of playing a half orc fighter with a 3 charisma just so you can say stuff that nobody else dares to.

[Spuddles]

I played a 3d6 down the line, level 1, only NPC classes game once. It was a blast! I had a half-orc adept who was the village witch. There were a bunch of us. I think we wiped on an ogre with cleave :(

[LordBlades]

.
Where's the fun in that though. Playing a PC with some dreadful scores is part of the fun of playing whether that's a stupid fighter or an feeble wizard. I mean who hasn't had a the pleasure of playing a half orc fighter with a 3 charisma just so you can say stuff that nobody else dares to.

Playing a PC with a quirk due to a low score (like the aforementioned 3 cha half-orc) is fun. Playing an under-performing PC due to a low score (like a 16 str. half-orc when your buddy plays a human and has 18 str.) not so much.

[Asheram]

Our group always do point-buy after the clericzilla incident. That girl just rolled a bit too good too often... Especially when the average on character generation, according to her, was around 16 in all stats.

[Mnemnosyne]

If I sit down with a character concept in mind that I want to bring to the game and I'm already imagining what this character is like, what she's good at, what her personality is and how she was growing up, I do not want to roll scores and I generally am going to refuse to do so, because rolling scores will almost never match up to the character concept I'm thinking about. It's not about how high or low the scores are - if I got all 18s, it probably wouldn't match the character concept, because I doubt I'm thinking of a character that is the pinnacle of human ability in every possible field.

On the other hand, if I have no idea what sort of character I want to play, don't have a personality or class or anything else decided ahead of time, rolling is fine. Hell, at that point I would probably accept 3d6, in order, because that gives me stats and then I have to figure out a character around those stats. Great. If I don't have an idea in mind already. That's a pretty big if, because more often than not, I do have an idea in mind already.

[Winter_Wolf]

I prefer rolling. 4d6b3 (to taste), for me. I played a campaign with 4d6b3, you get to reroll any ones, ONE time, and it had to be the same die. If you got four twos, you had an ability score of 6 somewhere. If you got four ones twice in a row, you got your 3 score. Luckily I am really bad at Yahtzee. :smallwink:

There was an 'exploding die' mechanic in play if you rolled an 18. You rolled another d6, and every time a '6' came up, you added one to the total for that score. Theoretically you could get, say, 30, but you'd probably have your dice examined long before then.

I did the 3d6 in order thing a few times, and quickly abandoned it. 3d6 to taste was waaay better.

I wouldn't refuse to play in a game over point buy vs rolling, but I'd never ask for PB.

[molten_dragon]

I've played in several games in the past where I rolled for ability scores. Mostly just your standard 4d6 drop the lowest, but I played in one game where the DM had us roll 3d6 in order to get our scores (which I did weirdly okay on, nothing higher than 13 or lower than 12).

Generally in games I run, I have people use point buy though. I've just seen rolling go bad too many times, where one player does exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly, and then people get frustrated and jealous. Point-buy makes for less conflict.

I've tried a few other odd ways of generating ability scores before though too. I've done rolling 6+2d6. I've also done up a 6x6 grid of ability score rolls, and allowed people to pick any row, column, or diagonal, in either forward or reverse order for their scores.

Mostly though, point buy is just the easiest, most conflict-free method, so I use it.

[GenghisDon]

Pretty much what the title says. I've see plenty of threads here discussing point buys and I was wanting to get opinions on why in the world people would choose point buy over actually rolling for their ability scores. I personally roll for mine every chance I get.

Thanks for making this post/topic LanSlyde, it has made me realise I DO have things in common with many folks here on the playground. :smallsmile:

[LTwerewolf]

Our roll method is pretty good imo. We roll 3 sets of numbers, and those numbers are in the order of the stats (so the first number you roll is str, etc). Then you choose which set you want. Once you've chosen the set you want, you're allowed to flip two of the numbers.

I tend to get lucky with my rolls, my current druid I'm playing is 12, 18, 18, 14, 18, 18. We started at level 1 (last night in fact).

[Novawurmson]

I wanted to do a point-buy in my current campaign. Two of my players - both of whom are extremely lucky (one of them rolled three natural 20's in a row last night) - rebelled. So I had one of the lucky players roll me three sets of stats and then I figured out what their equivalent would be in PF point buy. I think they were a 39, 46, and 40, so I told them to use a 40 PB.

[LanSlyde]

Thanks for making this post/topic LanSlyde, it has made me realise I DO have things in common with many folks here on the playground. :smallsmile:

Arigato no Dono.:smallbiggrin:

[AlanBruce]

My group does 2 sets of 4d6, rolled 7 times. Anything below an 8 is rerolled if desired, taking the result (be it better or worse) and eliminating the 7th lowest score in each set. This provides for balanced to moderately strong characters in our games.

Of course, from what I have read so far, everyone has their own method. Ultimately, the game is about having fun, regardless of how a character is generated.

[molten_dragon]

The thing that tells me the most that rolling doesn't really work as written, is that the majority of people in the thread who roll stats use some method designed to give higher scores than the simple 4d6b3.

[Curmudgeon]

Nope. When I'm DMing I never allow rolling for stats, or for hit points. There's plenty of opportunity for chance during game play. Character creation and level advancement should be about the player getting to execute their plan for their PC's life, not disappointment/excess based on dice vagaries.

[Terazul]

The thing that tells me the most that rolling doesn't really work as written, is that the majority of people in the thread who roll stats use some method designed to give higher scores than the simple 4d6b3.

That's honestly the biggest thing that sticks out to me. With the exception of the 3d6 oldschoolers, everything else is all about mitigating the chance of crappy scores to begin with; Best of X, Reroll Ys, Pick one of Z sets. If you're going to go through all that just to keep rolling I really don't get it, but more power to ya.

[Eldonauran]

That's honestly the biggest thing that sticks out to me. With the exception of the 3d6 oldschoolers, everything else is all about mitigating the chance of crappy scores to begin with; Best of X, Reroll Ys, Pick one of Z sets. If you're going to go through all that just to keep rolling I really don't get it, but more power to ya.

Its a gamble and some people feel they have to weigh the odds in their favor. That's just how they have fun. Others like to gamble but also understand that the game they are playing in requires higher average stat rolls. Rolling scores is just a tool. How you use it determines if it is the right 'tool' for the job.

I see the game itself as a huge gamble and I get my enjoyment out of the ride, rather than the end result.

Never quite understood the issue with stat-envy. "That character's total mods are higher than mine!" :smallconfused: So?

[molten_dragon]

Its a gamble and some people feel they have to weigh the odds in their favor. That's just how they have fun. Others like to gamble but also understand that the game they are playing in requires higher average stat rolls. Rolling scores is just a tool. How you use it determines if it is the right 'tool' for the job.

I see the game itself as a huge gamble and I get my enjoyment out of the ride, rather than the end result.

I don't think there's anything wrong with rolling. I wouldn't quit a game because it required me to roll ability scores or anything. I just don't understand why people insist on rolling scores, and then stack the deck in their favor to insure they get scores that they consider good enough to play with. Why not just go with point buy and you'll know exactly what you're getting.

Again, I don't think it's wrong or bad or anything, I just don't understand it.


Never quite understood the issue with stat-envy. "That character's total mods are higher than mine!" :smallconfused: So?

I get it. Stats matter quite a bit in D&D, especially to characters who are MAD. Why should that other guy's character be measurably better than mine simply because he, as a player, had better luck rolling stats.

Part of the problem (and the one that most people who roll often seem to be trying to solve) is that the range of acceptable ability scores is too wide. The lowest acceptable ability score array by RAW is 14 10 10 10 10 8 (equivalent of 14 point buy), and the highest acceptable ability score array by RAW is 18 18 18 18 18 18 (equivalent of 96 point buy). That's a huge range to have in the same game, and will result in a pretty big gulf between players who rolled well and those who rolled poorly, especially at low levels.

[Eldonauran]

Why should that other guy's character be measurably better than mine simply because he, as a player, had better luck rolling stats.

I think thats the crux of the issue right there. Both players rolled, gambled, for their stats and one feels he got 'cheated' because the other guys was luckier than him. Lady Luck is fickle, generous and miserly at the same time and laughes heartily when someone plays her game and cries foul when it isnt 'fair'.

If the inherent 'unfairness' of rolling is something that no one wants to deal with, point buy is just what was created to address that concern.

I guess its just different playing style. I see nothing wrong with your's and see nothing wrong with mine. I could run around with a Paladin with stats of 14, 13, 14, 10, 12, 12 and feel just as at home with a wizard that has stats higher than mine (18 in INT, 18 in Dex, several other scores above a 12).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

My favorite campaign ever started with rolling 3d4+X for point buy scores, where X was defined the the expected power level of your character relative to the rest of the group. So my Wizard had like a 26 point buy, and our Paladin had something more like 40-45 point buy.

[NavyBlue]

Come on, this argument just ended. Why would you start it again?

[LanSlyde]

Come on, this argument just ended. Why would you start it again?

What are you talking about? I didn't start any argument. :smallconfused:

[NavyBlue]

Uh....nevermind. Thought this would go negative like the last thread on stat generation did. Carry on. Don't mind me, over here with foot gently inside mouth.

[umbergod]

My favorite campaign ever started with rolling 3d4+X for point buy scores, where X was defined the the expected power level of your character relative to the rest of the group. So my Wizard had like a 26 point buy, and our Paladin had something more like 40-45 point buy.

I like that. A built in handicap to at least alleviate some of the power discrepancies between the tiers of classes.

[Kazyan]

My group is by the book. 4d6b3 and arrange, rerolling if the DM thinks your array sucks or you qualify by default.

Knight: Two rerolls, followed by 18, 18, 18, 17, 10, 6.
Totemist: Two rerolls, followed by 16, 16, 16, 13, 9, 6.
Fighter: Elite array, almost perfectly.

2cp.

[umbergod]

One downside to rolling is the chance in it. I've been lucky enough to one time, roll 6 18s in a row in front of my DM. I played exactly 1 adventure and retired that character to the trashcan. If I wanted an "I win" button I'd go play something else.

[Remmirath]

I always roll for scores when at all possible at low levels (4d6, drop the lowest). I don't like using pointbuys and will generally avoid games using them, and I refuse to use arrays. A one-for-one exchange with a pool and including the option to sink stats as low as three would be also be acceptable to me (such as found in Icewind Dale II, in case that description failed), but I haven't encountered anyone who uses that in pen and paper.

At very high levels, in the group I usually play with, everyone in the group trusts each other enough that we just pick the stats. That is probably the ideal to me - I can have my character however I want them to be, including negatives - but it doesn't work out in most groups. Even then, when we are playing low-level games, I will roll the stats, because at low levels I like to take the stats as a base point and then figure out a character from them. I don't usually think up the character before rolling the stats except in higher level games. In the relatively few high level games I've played with other groups I also prefer to roll the stats, because the picking method does not work with most groups.

[One Step Two]

The groups my friends and I play in are pretty laid back, but we deal with older gamers from the AD&D days, and rolling for stats is the thing to do. They of course saw the flaws in the 3d6 in order business and we have a long-standing arrangement for 5d6 re-roll 1's, assign as you like.

The DM is open to allowing you to shifting a point here or there if needed, and will usually measure the array to the party, if there's a major descrepency between any characters, he'll offer you the chance to make a score a little higher
For example, the Gm said would say you could make a 16 into a 17 to give them a bit more variance, but leaving you with a 9 to make sure their character has to make a choice about something that has to impair him a little, if the rest of the stats are average and decent looking, and there's always the option of re-rolling the lot once.

This is a lot more GM book keeping, having to watch rolls, and measure the spread of your scores, but it adds a little 'diciness' to the whole experience, which is a little fun.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I tend to a little bit of both point buy and rolling.

Going old school? 3d6, in order

Normal game, everyone know what they are doing? -> 4d6 drop lowest

Newbies in the group? -> point buy

High powered game, optimization heavy? -> 1d8+10


Personally, I dont care how the scores are determined. I get my stats and build my character around them. My character takes shape from the chaos that spawned it and I end up loving it more. Like a artist with a stone, seeing the shape within it. You work with what you get and marvel at the hidden beauty you bring out of it.

:smallamused: That's how 'I roll'
Bolded for emphasis. Wow, that is going to make some random stats.

If I sit down with a character concept in mind that I want to bring to the game and I'm already imagining what this character is like, what she's good at, what her personality is and how she was growing up, I do not want to roll scores and I generally am going to refuse to do so, because rolling scores will almost never match up to the character concept I'm thinking about. It's not about how high or low the scores are - if I got all 18s, it probably wouldn't match the character concept, because I doubt I'm thinking of a character that is the pinnacle of human ability in every possible field.

On the other hand, if I have no idea what sort of character I want to play, don't have a personality or class or anything else decided ahead of time, rolling is fine. Hell, at that point I would probably accept 3d6, in order, because that gives me stats and then I have to figure out a character around those stats. Great. If I don't have an idea in mind already. That's a pretty big if, because more often than not, I do have an idea in mind already.

^This, when I'm joining another group.

When I DM, I default to point buy, but if things are getting stale we'll roll for stats. Something between 4d6b3 arranged how you like for a standard game, down to 3d6 in order for a really gritty game.

I really don't see the point in rolling if you're not willing to accept a chance of at least one low score, and I don't consider the minimal chance of something like rolling 5d6b3 12 times reroll anything below an 8 to be actually taking any chances worth noting.

[Fineous Orlon]

Totally against INDIVIDUAL rolling. I really do not enjoy a game that may last for months that could be severely hampered by the first 6 rolls for my character.

I also am unable to generate a lot of enjoyment if the player next to me has much better scores. Sure, I can be happy for him, but I want to be happy as well.

As a basic example, I find little enjoyment in the roleplaying 'thrill' of not being as effective as another character with a similar role but noticeably better abilities.

Point buy is fine, our group uses it a good bit. We like the customization, especially once we pass the 25 point level.

What I like best is to have everyone use the same scores, and everyone contribute at least 1 rolled score [3of4d6] to the 'pot.' We try again if the players think the characters scores are not fun to play, or the DM says it will not survive, or is too powerful. Usually an adjustment is called for, the DM might turn a 7 into an 8 or a 9.

I first noticed this method in an Otto the Bugbear post, long ago.

[Knaight]

Broadly speaking - I favor choice in aspects of a character that are going to last a long time. If a character is going to see use in a one shot and never come up again, rolling is fine by me (though given what 3.x character creation entails I'd really rather take a pregen), and I'd be fine with rolling for classes and similar as well. In a character that might last years, I'd rather keep rolling to more ephemeral things - individual attack rolls, skill checks, whatever.

[robertbevan]

i'm a roller. i even prefer to roll down the line. if i get to choose where i put my scores, i'd probably play a similar character every time. random chance forces me to try different things.

[Coidzor]

We roll, 4d6 best three, with a variable number of re-rolls allowed. I think I'd prefer a point-buy system though.

[Eldonauran]

Bolded for emphasis. Wow, that is going to make some random stats.

:smallamused: Yes, very 'random' indeed :smallwink:
Since we only use it for games where higher power is expected, I find it tolerable.

1d10+8, yeah equivalent to 33 point buy on average. We've also done 1d8+10 before. I happen to like the chance of rolling and still getting a negative modifier. Keeps it realistic.

[hoverfrog]

Of course, from what I have read so far, everyone has their own method. Ultimately, the game is about having fun, regardless of how a character is generated.This.

Whether the DM tells you that all your scores start at 10, you roll 6d6b3 100 times or you have a 50 point buy it doesn't really matter. It's all about having fun. I've seen a few people roll PbP characters on these forums who say "with those rolls it's not for me" and just leave the game before it's begun. Where's the fun in that?

[Kelb_Panthera]

:smallamused: Yes, very 'random' indeed :smallwink:
Since we only use it for games where higher power is expected, I find it tolerable.

1d10+8, yeah equivalent to 33 point buy on average. We've also done 1d8+10 before. I happen to like the chance of rolling and still getting a negative modifier. Keeps it realistic.

On average, sure. That's almost never going to come out average though, there just aren't enough dice involved.

I don't think it's a bad thing, mind. I was just surprised that someone would use a method that random in char gen. 3d6 in order is more predictable.

[The New Bruceski]

On average, sure. That's almost never going to come out average though, there just aren't enough dice involved.

I don't think it's a bad thing, mind. I was just surprised that someone would use a method that random in char gen. 3d6 in order is more predictable.

Lessee... 1d8+10 rolled 6 times. If we assume "average" is 6d8 totalling between 24 and 30 (averaging 4-5 per die) then from http://anydice.com/ we get the total odds of an "average" set of numbers to be 2(6.08+6.54+6.83)+6.92= 45.82%

Odd definition of "almost never".

[Eldonauran]

I don't think it's a bad thing, mind. I was just surprised that someone would use a method that random in char gen. 3d6 in order is more predictable.

Yeah, statistically, you arent going to get 33 'points' everytime you roll with 1d10+8 but you have a 50/50 shot of getting at least that much. I took the liberty of rolling a few sets and came up with the following spreads

35 point buy
25 point buy
32 point buy
53 point buy
47 point buy
39 point buy

Reminder, i dont use this method to get stats for a character i already have a concept for. I merely use it as a tool to determine whatI can play, or should. Its all in how you use the tool.

[GenghisDon]

2d6+6 works pretty well for d20, if one wants solid stats (average 13) vs 13.5 for that way.

I really do prefer the old 1e method the most however. You can't have more than one really bad score (5 or less) & always have at least 2 scores of 15.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Lessee... 1d8+10 rolled 6 times. If we assume "average" is 6d8 totalling between 24 and 30 (averaging 4-5 per die) then from http://anydice.com/ we get the total odds of an "average" set of numbers to be 2(6.08+6.54+6.83)+6.92= 45.82%

Odd definition of "almost never".

You misunderstand me, though I probably could've phrased it better.

Abilities are not, for the most part, interdependent. Each ability having a 1:10 chance of being average means that the spread of his abilities will be much more random than in many other systems, and almost always much more random than any of the common rolling methods.

[demigodus]

2d6+6 works pretty well for d20, if one wants solid stats (average 13) vs 13.5 for that way.

I really do prefer the old 1e method the most however. You can't have more than one really bad score (5 or less) & always have at least 2 scores of 15.

What is the old 1e method? Completely unfamiliar with first edition, so I'm curious.

[jaybird]

2d6+6 works pretty well for d20, if one wants solid stats (average 13) vs 13.5 for that way.

I really do prefer the old 1e method the most however. You can't have more than one really bad score (5 or less) & always have at least 2 scores of 15.

Yeah, I'm curious - I thought 1st ed was 3d6 in order?

[TuggyNE]

Lessee... 1d8+10 rolled 6 times. If we assume "average" is 6d8 totalling between 24 and 30 (averaging 4-5 per die) then from http://anydice.com/ we get the total odds of an "average" set of numbers to be 2(6.08+6.54+6.83)+6.92= 45.82%

Odd definition of "almost never".

Statistically, that is a terrible way to try to evaluate score variability. What matters is a given score, not the sum of them. Here's a better comparison (http://anydice.com/program/1584/graph) for a single score with the various rolling methods outlined so far (not counting rerolls). Notice the perfectly flat line? That's the evenly distributed randomness making itself known.

[Doug Lampert]

The thing that tells me the most that rolling doesn't really work as written, is that the majority of people in the thread who roll stats use some method designed to give higher scores than the simple 4d6b3.

This also says that 28 points is too little for most people who roll. 28 is roughly average for rolls BtB even before you reject sets that BtB are unplayably low. Rejecting low sets will get the average up a fair amount.

And rolled characters actually played for any length of time is NOT a random set of statistically average rolls. IME rolled players tend to suicide or reroll or just not resurect characters with anything like the 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 array. This further increases the average for rolled characters.

But most of the rolling players don't actually use the default rolling system that averages about 30 points, instead almost all of them reject it as too weak. Naturally they also reject point buy at 25 points.

Things like 5d6, reroll 1s will AVERAGE a 47 point buy, and that's before you take into account that people may still find ways to reroll "weak" characters.

Something like 4d6, drop lowest, convert the lowest remaining die to a 6 averages a 57 point buy.

57 points on a point buy as an average. Yet a 36 point buy is frequently claimed to be the domain of munchkins. If you like rolling but use anything more favorable than the rulebook method, then seriously consider that maybe what you actually like isn't rolling, it's having the ability to have competent MAD characters and maybe you should simply use a very high point buy.

[Popertop]

Baus I have to say, if I caught someone cheating I would probably end up murdering their character. No one enjoys getting taken out by LanSlydes LandSlide.

I can has sig?



This ^^, while I enjoy rolling for stats I despise being railroaded. Reminds me of the time I forced into helping assassins murder one of my own party members. At the time none of us actually knew in-game who each other were. So I stole the keys to every room at the in, snuck into his while he was sleeping, poured acid on his blade, cut the leather straps on his armor, crushed the acid vials and dumped the glass (and what acid remained) into his shoes, stole all of his easily concealable gear, barricaded his door from the outside, and lit the inn on fire.

Needless to say, he died. Apparently the assassins were meant to fail and nothing bad would have actually happened. The DM at the time was not happy with me. I told him not to try and make me do something I don't want to do and this type of thing wont happen.


:smallconfused:


Are you sure you weren't the assassin the whole time?

[Seerow]

On average, sure. That's almost never going to come out average though, there just aren't enough dice involved.

I don't think it's a bad thing, mind. I was just surprised that someone would use a method that random in char gen. 3d6 in order is more predictable.

That's nothing. I once had a DM who insisted on players rolling 1d20 for attributes.

[Menteith]

That's nothing. I once had a DM who insisted on players rolling 1d20 for attributes.

Now I kinda want to see what would actually happen....brb rolling.

My array is 3,2,12,3,4,1. :smallfrown:. I need better dice.

[NotScaryBats]

I think rolling is fine. Its how I was taught on 2nd edition, and I don't think I could point buy a 2nd ed character.

But, now I play 3.5 and 4, and point buy just seems to be the way to go with those. Maybe because I forum rp a lot, maybe because 4e basically says 'use pointbuy, but if you want, roll' rather than vice versa.

The only problem I have is when Mr. 10/15/12/18/17/17 shows up. I feel a bit jealous then, and I think everyone does.