Your lowest attribute is a 16?!: A discussion on freakishly high stat rolls.

[SgtCarnage92]

So, I'm getting a Pathfinder campaign off the ground in the next couple weeks and so we're starting to get characters generated. One of my players always seems to roll really high on his initial stat rolls. I can't remember the exact numbers on his recent set but the lowest was a 14 with at least two 17s and I'm sure an 18 or two. This is after the 4th level attribute boost as I'm starting them at level five. He also hasn't purchased gear yet so these stats may be modified in the meantime.

Granted, I expect their sets to be a little better seeing as I let them roll three sets and take the higher, but having your lowest stat after racial adjustments being 16 (i believe it was DEX) seems like it could be unbalancing, especially if the other players don't roll as well, which they are prone to do.

I would prefer to have them do point-buy so that this doesn't become a concern, but my players prefer to roll stats (this player in particular does so because he always rolls consistently high). I still have yet to see the other players roll their characters up, so I'm not sure how well they will end up stacking up against this beast, and some of them are notorious for rolling poor sets. It may not end up being too much of a concern, but I want to know what my options are in the meantime.

My questions to the playground follow:
Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

Thanks guys, you guys tend to give lots of perspectives on these sort of things.

[Beelzebub1111]

You're the one that let him roll three sets. I usually go one set, reroll ones ONCE!. Then reroll any one ability and take the higher.

If you roll all 13 and under, tough noogies.

[eggs]

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?
It wouldn't be the dice I'd look at.

[Mnemnosyne]

If you allowed rolling in the first place, and I was fine with that, and I got rolls that I liked, I would be very upset if you tried to make me change my stats after rolling them.

Don't allow rolling if you're not willing to accept both extremely high and extremely low stats. Especially don't allow rolling with an extremely generous method like you described if you're not willing to accept extremely high stats.

If your players are the ones who have argued for rolling, don't give them any special allowances. They wanted it this way, let them live with it. And beyond your already generous rolling method, don't let them reroll anything. If they don't like it, tough cookies; they wanted rolling instead of point buy, and with rolling comes the possibility of getting ****ty scores.

In future games, either don't allow rolling at all and use point buy.

[ahenobarbi]

I didn't play pathfinder much (mostly 3.5) so my opinion may be wrong but... I don't think it will be a problem. Because most power comes from class levels.

Sure, having high ability scores is nice. But well-built characters with single 14, single 8 and all others 10s (the lowest that you don't get to re-roll in 3.5) will be a lot more powerful than poorly built character with all 18.

But this could become a problem if your group is really low op (this will make ability scores matter more) or if the player optimizes more than the rest of the group.

Also you could use the same dice set to roll stats for everyone (because some dice tend to roll lower some tend to roll higher).

[molten_dragon]

So, I'm getting a Pathfinder campaign off the ground in the next couple weeks and so we're starting to get characters generated. One of my players always seems to roll really high on his initial stat rolls. I can't remember the exact numbers on his recent set but the lowest was a 14 with at least two 17s and I'm sure an 18 or two. This is after the 4th level attribute boost as I'm starting them at level five. He also hasn't purchased gear yet so these stats may be modified in the meantime.

Granted, I expect their sets to be a little better seeing as I let them roll three sets and take the higher, but having your lowest stat after racial adjustments being 16 (i believe it was DEX) seems like it could be unbalancing, especially if the other players don't roll as well, which they are prone to do.

Which is the main reason not to roll stats, and do point-buy instead.


I would prefer to have them do point-buy so that this doesn't become a concern, but my players prefer to roll stats (this player in particular does so because he always rolls consistently high). I still have yet to see the other players roll their characters up, so I'm not sure how well they will end up stacking up against this beast, and some of them are notorious for rolling poor sets. It may not end up being too much of a concern, but I want to know what my options are in the meantime.

My first thought is that he's cheating. I'd tell them you changed your mind and they need to use point buy, or at the very least, make him reroll in front of you.


Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

It can be, especially at low levels. It really depends more on the spread between players than what precisely he rolled. If everyone rolls that well, I wouldn't call the party unbalanced, just higher-powered than usual, and that's something you can account for.


Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

I don't think it would be unfair, but he might.


Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

People who always roll high for stats are generally cheating. Maybe he's got unbalanced dice, either intentionally or not, but it's probably something simpler than that.


Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

No, I'd just either make everyone roll in front of you with a set of dice you provide and they get what they get, or use point buy for all of them.

[Eldariel]

Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

Enables some character concepts and class combinations. Can be too strong on others. Just make sure he doesn't do everything better than the dedicated characters; there's nothing wrong with a character that's decent at everything (class is still a bigger deal far as ability goes than stats).


Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

You had him roll. That means whatever's rolled goes. If you don't want to deal with high rolls, rolling is the wrong system of stat generation.


Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

Some people might be lucky.


Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

You could use a different roll system. Otherwise, no. There are ways to make rolls come closer tho.

[HunterOfJello]

My questions to the playground follow:
Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

No, not really. It's good to remember that the Tier 1 classes are primarily single attribute dependent. A wizard with 32 Intelligence or a Cleric with 30 Wisdom is far more unbalanced than a Ranger or Paladin with all 18s. (I chose Ranger and Paladin because they're both quite MAD.)


Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

YES it would be unfair. It would be both unfair and a real ******* move to make. If you're the DM and you set down very strict and specific mathematical rules for something, then decide to change them just because you thought the result was too good, then you're being a jerk. I would quit a game if the DM did something like that. Instantly nerfing a character just because they got some good rolls is a terrible idea. While less likely, remember that even a normal 3d6 roll 6 times can end up with an 18 18 18 18 18 18 character. Penalizing someone because they happened to do well with random rolls is never an appropriate idea.


Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

This is a possiblity, but I think six sided dice are more likely to be balanced in proportion than a die like a d20. Most d20s are slightly egg shaped instead of pseudo-sperical. That means that they're more likely to roll on two numbers than the rest (those two being on opposite sides). A d6 isn't like that though, so it shouldn't have too much of a bias unless it is deliberately weighted. Also, it takes a lot of effort to actually create a weighted die. I think there are methods to make one side weigh a bit more than the others, but still a d6 is harder to manipulate than a spherically shaped die.


Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

Depending on the class, PCs do well with between 1 and 5 decent scores. If a player only has one good score, then he/she is regulated into playing a class that only requires 1 good score. If they have 5 good scores, then they can choose between most classes and even gain some fun multiclassing options that most people never get like a melee Druid 10/Wizard 2.

Raising some players up slightly is always a better idea than nerfing a different player down. If the player rolled the dice in front of you and that's how they landed, then that's just how things go. This entire situation is why lots of people prefer to just do point-buys.

If you really want to help some players out to have more than 1 good stat, then you can offer to give a PC who takes levels in a lower tier class a boost to 1 or 2 stats of their choice. Figure out who wants to go into what class setup and then make decisions from there. Don't try to artificially boost up a Wizard to have 4 good stats when he only needs 1, or let a Paladin run around with only stat above 13 when he needs 4-5. Get a better picture of things then report back in.

~~~~~~~~

Note: If he did not roll in front of you, then what I've said changes quite a bit. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER accept rolls that are not made directly in front of you. This goes for pre-game, in-game, and after-game. If this is what he said he rolled at home, tell him the policy is that no roll that the DM cannot see counts. That includes rolls that fall onto the ground during a game. Everything should always be on the table in front of everyone. The only person who that rule doesn't apply to is the DM. If he wants to roll out of sight, then he can be the DM instead of you.

[ThiagoMartell]

If this bothers you, just use point buy.

[Big Fau]

Ability scores in general kinda stop mattering around 10th level save for Init, Spellcasting stats, prereqs, and ability damage. You could give everyone straight 18's across the board for a 12th level campaign and it would barely make a difference.

[Alabenson]

There are basically two reasons why I wouldn't worry overmuch about your player's high ability scores;

1) Since they're starting at level 5, most of your player's power is coming from their class levels, not their ability scores, so the impact rolling high has is greatly lessened.

2) The classes that benefit from having high scores in all or almost all of their stats are almost always lower-tier. The classes that could unbalance your game typically only need a high score in only one stat.

[Randomguy]

It's possible that it could just be an unfair dice. I've heard that if a corner of a dice gets worn away, (whether intentional or accidentally, I'm not accusing your player of cheating), then it would make it more likely to land on the opposite edge.

You could always check a set of dice by rolling them a hundred or so times and recording how many times each dice lands on each side, but that would be very tedious.


In any case, if this happens consistently then I'd suggest making him use another set of dice for ability generation in future, but there's not much reason to make him re-roll. As others said, abilities matter less at higher levels.

[ThiagoMartell]

Ability scores in general kinda stop mattering around 10th level save for Init, Spellcasting stats, prereqs, and ability damage. You could give everyone straight 18's across the board for a 12th level campaign and it would barely make a difference.

I emphatically disagree. In fact, ability scores matter more at those levels, since you can load up on X to Y abilities. You can get an ability score in the low 30s by level 12... and add it to everything you do.

[tyckspoon]

Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

Thanks guys, you guys tend to give lots of perspectives on these sort of things.

Frankly, if you have them roll for stats in an unverifiable way (not witnessed at the table/rolled on Invisible Castle or another service that keeps a record of the roll, for example.. and even that doesn't really prevent just creating a massive number of sets to sort before you choose the three you 'really rolled') you may as well just ask them to choose the stats they want- there's not all that much difference between that and rolling a hundred sets then picking the 'honestly' rolled array you want to use.

[SgtCarnage92]

Thanks for all of the feedback!

Just to clarify I was in the room when he rolled his character, however I did not actually see the numbers so I am going to ask him to give me a re-roll just for the sake of consistency. I may also give him a set of dice to roll with (and have everyone roll using the same set) just so we can make sure everyone is starting with as much equal as possible. He should understand, and if he doesn't then that's his problem, not mine.

It's interesting to hear you guys mentioning how generous "roll 3 sets and pick best" stat generation is. This group is a little spoiled when it comes to this as another GM in our group proposed it when we originally started playing and the players now expect this as the norm. I was having a player complaining during my last campaign using point buy because not all of his stats had +2 modifier or more (I used point-buy and got ganged up on in an argument because they didn't feel they were powerful enough because of their numbers).

Thanks again Playground. Your insight is always appreciated.

[SgtCarnage92]

*edit* accidental double post

[Eldariel]

Thanks for all of the feedback!

Just to clarify I was in the room when he rolled his character, however I did not actually see the numbers so I am going to ask him to give me a re-roll just for the sake of consistency. I may also give him a set of dice to roll with (and have everyone roll using the same set) just so we can make sure everyone is starting with as much equal as possible. He should understand, and if he doesn't then that's his problem, not mine.

It's interesting to hear you guys mentioning how generous "roll 3 sets and pick best" stat generation is. This group is a little spoiled when it comes to this as another GM in our group proposed it when we originally started playing and the players now expect this as the norm. I was having a player complaining during my last campaign using point buy because not all of his stats had +2 modifier or more (I used point-buy and got ganged up on in an argument because they didn't feel they were powerful enough because of their numbers).

Thanks again Playground. Your insight is always appreciated.

You could use one of the alternate "fairified" rolling methods then. For instance, a good one I've seen used:
Everybody rolls a set. Then all players may pick any of the rolled sets. This way, everybody has somewhat even stats and people still have room for variety.


I'll say this: My first 3.5 character had by far the best rolls I've ever had. 18 Str, 18 Dex, 16 Con, 16 Int, 12 Wis, 14 Cha. All even, extremely far above the curve.

The character was Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane Archer 4/Spellsword 3. Overall, he's the least powerful character I've ever played by quite a bit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I emphatically disagree. In fact, ability scores matter more at those levels, since you can load up on X to Y abilities. You can get an ability score in the low 30s by level 12... and add it to everything you do.

This..... doesn't make stat's more important at mid-level. In fact it makes 5 of your stat's almost completely irrelevant if you use the X stat to Y bonus abilities to focus on only one ability.

@the OP: remember that the difference between 14 and 18 is only +2. If you think a 10% difference in ability will be significantly unbalancing, then sure it's unbalanced.

IMO 10% is only a few percentage points away from negligable.

[molten_dragon]

@the OP: remember that the difference between 14 and 18 is only +2. If you think a 10% difference in ability will be significantly unbalancing, then sure it's unbalanced.

IMO 10% is only a few percentage points away from negligable.

It's not just +2, let's say the guy in the OP ended up with something like 18 18 17 17 16 16 (I have no idea what he actually got). And another player ended up with something like 15 14 14 12 11 10. That means the first character on average has a +2 on EVERYTHING compared to the first character. +2 AC, 2 more hit points, 2 more skills maxed out, all his skills 2 points higher, +2 to all saves, +2 to attack rolls +2 damage, +2 initiative, +2 to spell save DCs. That adds up to a pretty hefty power disparity between the two characters. By 5th level, it's less of an issue than it would be at 1st or 2nd, but it's not insignificant.

[ericgrau]

My questions to the playground follow:
1 Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

2 Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

3 Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

4 Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?
1. In low optimization class features like uncanny dodge and trap sense amount to little, so a +1 modifier to everything is almost as good as a level. In high optimization it's less special. Even so being a level ahead of others isn't enough to totally dominate. That takes around 2-4 levels. If it's really +2 more on everything that could be worse. In spite of what people say, the advantage does not change in the slightest as you level up; it gives the sames as levels minus class features.

2. Because of (1) I'd let him keep it.

3. More likely the dice aren't rolling so they land on or within 1 of the same number repeatedly. When it lands on a poor number players tend to make sure it actually rolls so you don't also get repeatedly low numbers. Make sure players roll all 4 dice at once rather than a single die and make sure the dice tumble/shake around a bit on every roll. For truly random rolls 4-6 high stats are extremely rare. Also gives that much more reason for (2): makes it feel special yet not so common that it's a problem.

4. Nah, unless someone is extremely low. And raising everyone else is the same as lowering him. But if he's that proud of "doing well" rather than proud of his luck I'd check #3 very carefully in the future.

You can't be sure how he rolled this time since you weren't watching so I'm not certain how to handle it. But if this is the 3rd time I might even ask for a reroll. Even on the statistically 1 in a million chance he did nothing wrong say it'll be more fair since he shined before. If this is his first time rolling so high I might let it slide: if he pulls a fast one once then oh well catch him next time and if he just got lucky then oh well let him enjoy it.

[Snowbluff]

I emphatically disagree. In fact, ability scores matter more at those levels, since you can load up on X to Y abilities. You can get an ability score in the low 30s by level 12... and add it to everything you do.

This.

You every play a good X to Y set up? Like, get a Wizard with Faerie Mysteries Initiate for you high Int to AC, or a Sorc Gish with a Dip in Paladin or Battledancer, and Arcane Prep for Luminous Armor. Numbers will find you, and the RNG god will beg for mercy!

[Darth_Versity]

I've played a character that rolled 18,17,17,16,16,14 which was so superior compared to the others its not even worth mentioning, but it doesn't make much difference. I was slightly better in areas such as combat and skill use but it didn't overshadow the others enough to render them usless. Everyone still contributed and got a chance in the spotlight.

Admittedly this was a D20 Starship Troopers game where everyone plays the same class. Might be different in DnD depending on what class he picks.

[silverwolfer]

You're the one that let him roll three sets. I usually go one set, reroll ones ONCE!. Then reroll any one ability and take the higher.

If you roll all 13 and under, tough noogies.



eh then, I just wouldn't play with you. Being a level 8 commoner, while fun maybe for a short period, would be utterly useless for everyone.

If someone really has that low of stats, then how did bad luck chuck, survive so many encounters, and really if someone did get that bad a roll. The only ones your truly punishing is your group, as now they have to pull even more weight, and that one player has to deal with being that one guy, that can't do anything at all.

Folks want to rp being heros, not average day folk.

[jaybird]

They asked for rolled stats, tough luck.

[Alabenson]

I've played a character that rolled 18,17,17,16,16,14 which was so superior compared to the others its not even worth mentioning, but it doesn't make much difference. I was slightly better in areas such as combat and skill use but it didn't overshadow the others enough to render them usless. Everyone still contributed and got a chance in the spotlight.

Admittedly this was a D20 Starship Troopers game where everyone plays the same class. Might be different in DnD depending on what class he picks.

Again, depending on which class he picks either A) his class will be powerful but only care about one high stat, or B) his class will need the multiple high stats, but the class itself will be on the weaker side.

[Novawurmson]

My group all tend to roll absurdly high on stats (rolling them in front of me, while I'm studying them carefully). What I did for my last campaign was I let one player roll up three sets of die, and I converted each of them into their worth in a PF point-buy. They came out to like 42, 39, 47, so I told everyone to use a 40 point buy. They were all still rewarded for rolling well, but evenly rewarded.

Here are my suggestions: Figure out what his rolls would be in a PB (trovetokens (http://www.trovetokens.com/pathfinder.html) will help with this), then let everyone use that level of point buy (remember to factor in race and level up adjustments through the program).

[Knaight]

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced.
There is such a thing as people who have always rolled high for stats so far. A lucky streak for stats that lasts for a few characters isn't particularly unlikely, particularly when you only need 1/3 of the sets you roll to be pretty good. Cheating is a possibility, but I wouldn't assume that it is happening.

It wouldn't be the dice I'd look at.

My first thought is that he's cheating. I'd tell them you changed your mind and they need to use point buy, or at the very least, make him reroll in front of you.

Frankly, if you have them roll for stats in an unverifiable way (not witnessed at the table/rolled on Invisible Castle or another service that keeps a record of the roll, for example.. and even that doesn't really prevent just creating a massive number of sets to sort before you choose the three you 'really rolled') you may as well just ask them to choose the stats they want- there's not all that much difference between that and rolling a hundred sets then picking the 'honestly' rolled array you want to use.
There is a difference between that and rolling one set (or rolling three and picking the best as in this case). There is no reason to assume that people will cheat just because they have the option. Good sets happen periodically, people generally play with other people who are friends, and there is no reason to assume that the person who rolled cheats when there is a perfectly plausible explanation in that he has had a small streak of good rolls.

[archon_huskie]

I have once rolled a 17 17 16 16 16 17 for my stats. It can seem like it gives one player an unfair advantage, but that is part of the point of rolling Stats to begin with! The player still had to distrubute skill points, feats and such. It is hard to make a character that has an advantage in everything. I personally feel that it is best for a character to build a niche that they are good at and for the DM to build a campaign such that every player gets their chances to shine.

If you are really concerned about it, you can try offering a free feat in exchange for lowering an attribute.

[ThiagoMartell]

eh then, I just wouldn't play with you. Being a level 8 commoner, while fun maybe for a short period, would be utterly useless for everyone.

If someone really has that low of stats, then how did bad luck chuck, survive so many encounters, and really if someone did get that bad a roll. The only ones your truly punishing is your group, as now they have to pull even more weight, and that one player has to deal with being that one guy, that can't do anything at all.

Folks want to rp being heros, not average day folk.

To be fair "13 and under" is not acceptable by RAW. There are rules to what constitutes a playable character, after all.

[aberratio ictus]

I rolled really good once. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was at least two 18s and one 16. The lowest was still a 10, though. The DM decided to let the other players roll more often in order to not make the game unbalanced, and I agreed. In the end, they all had better stats than me.

Nobody seemed to be bothered by that.


....

Maybe try something like that?

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

IMO - Stats don't make the character. The player does. A PC could have 18's in all their stats before adjustments and still be killed in the first combat. It's the luck of the dice rolls.

If the dice are legit, and the stats were rolled right in front of other players and the DM, then I would be all "Sweet! Awesome dice rolls <player name>! Good luck!".

I would be worried if the player had rolled them "in secret" away from the prying and judgmental eyes of others. Then I would ask for a re-roll. If you are worried about having stats that are too high or too low, then a point buy would be applicable in your situation. Changing out to a point buy system after one player rolls really well would seem like you were singling them out, even if it affects the rest of the party.

Agreed that higher stats make a moderate difference at lower levels. When the PC's start leveling up, the game tends to balance itself out. Plus, in the PF game, the monsters tend to be a little tougher for lower CR.

[Eldariel]

Folks want to rp being heros, not average day folk.

This is a bit of a generalization. A journal (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign) exists of a Commoner campaign and it was highly entertaining, for instance. And anti-heroes and villains have at least as big a place in a D&D table as heroes.

However, the difference of course is that what's being played is agreed upon beforehand; playing a Commoner in a party of Heroes only works if all the players and the DM are on board. Otherwise it's going to bother somebody. That is not to say it never works but it has come from the players' desire and with DM agreement.

[eggs]

Plus, rolling three sets, rerolling a one and then rerolling one ability is a considerably higher stat generation method than the normal "Roll once and use it" - even dropping the normal reroll stipulation.

[shadow_archmagi]

Yeah, I'd say there's probably some combination of overgenerous roll rules and players being inclined to fudge the dice.

[That_guy_there]

Not for nothing, but some peopel are just consistantly luck when they roll stats. We roll 4d6, reroll 1s once, and drop the lowest.

I've rolled a character with 18, 15, 17, 15, 16, 9 and played it (Awesome). The same game another player rolled 18, 16, 17, 17 15, 16 (IN THAT ORDER). We did this on the table infront of the DM. Then he made us roll again to see what would happen because he didn't believe what he saw. I rolled 17, 11, 13, 13, 16, 12. the other guy rolled 15, 17, 16, 15, 18, 18. Again all out in the open. The DM asked to roll his dice (on the condition that the player could keep either set), and rolled 12, 14, 16, 13, 10, 9.

So, no cheating there... sometimes its just the guy.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's not just +2, let's say the guy in the OP ended up with something like 18 18 17 17 16 16 (I have no idea what he actually got). And another player ended up with something like 15 14 14 12 11 10. That means the first character on average has a +2 on EVERYTHING compared to the first character. +2 AC, 2 more hit points, 2 more skills maxed out, all his skills 2 points higher, +2 to all saves, +2 to attack rolls +2 damage, +2 initiative, +2 to spell save DCs. That adds up to a pretty hefty power disparity between the two characters. By 5th level, it's less of an issue than it would be at 1st or 2nd, but it's not insignificant.

That only becomes true if both players build nearly identical characters. If one's a paladin and one's a rogue, the +2 likely won't apply to ac for the paladin because of max dex bonus from armor. That heavy armor will also reduce the +2 to most physical skills to 0 or even net a penalty. The rogue will still have more skill points by far, and he was never going to have as high an attack bonus anyway.

Even if they're both nearly identical fighters if one is 10% better than the other, that 10% can easily be lost in the dice; and effective teamwork can make that 10% benefit everyone, not just the player with the lucky stat roll.

The difference still looks nearly negligable to me, given how quickly that +2 gets lost in all the other numbers and dice rolls.

[Beelzebub1111]

eh then, I just wouldn't play with you. Being a level 8 commoner, while fun maybe for a short period, would be utterly useless for everyone.

If someone really has that low of stats, then how did bad luck chuck, survive so many encounters, and really if someone did get that bad a roll. The only ones your truly punishing is your group, as now they have to pull even more weight, and that one player has to deal with being that one guy, that can't do anything at all.

Folks want to rp being heros, not average day folk.

What I'm saying is, IF you're going to be rolling stats, and IF you truly want randomness for randomness sake you should be fine with it. If you want to roll because of the CHANCE to have a very powerful character, you shouldn't be whining if you don't get one.

[demigodus]

That only becomes true if both players build nearly identical characters. If one's a paladin and one's a rogue, the +2 likely won't apply to ac for the paladin because of max dex bonus from armor. That heavy armor will also reduce the +2 to most physical skills to 0 or even net a penalty. The rogue will still have more skill points by far, and he was never going to have as high an attack bonus anyway.

Even if they're both nearly identical fighters if one is 10% better than the other, that 10% can easily be lost in the dice; and effective teamwork can make that 10% benefit everyone, not just the player with the lucky stat roll.

The difference still looks nearly negligable to me, given how quickly that +2 gets lost in all the other numbers and dice rolls.

Yes, if the person with lower stats builds a better character, they will be able to keep up. A single bad roll shouldn't require you to optimize just so you can contribute.

And that +2 CAN get up. Maybe in an single encounter it won't be that big of a deal, but over a large set of encounters, the one with better stats with do well more often.

[Roguenewb]

Yes, if the person with lower stats builds a better character, they will be able to keep up. A single bad roll shouldn't require you to optimize just so you can contribute.

Bad logic. What happens if the player with the good rolls also makes the best character? Then everyone is huge piles behind.

[demigodus]

Bad logic. What happens if the player with the good rolls also makes the best character? Then everyone is huge piles behind.

-points to the second of the two sentences you quoted-

I never argued that since optimization can make up for the difference, the difference is fine. I'm saying a system that requires a randomly selected portion of the group to optimize more is a bad idea...

[Gamer Girl]

Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

Thanks guys, you guys tend to give lots of perspectives on these sort of things.

1. It depends on your game, but yes it can be very unbalancing. The typical problem is when a DM tries to run a ''low magic, low fantasy, nitty gritty game'', a ''superman character'' can unbalance that quick. When you have a normal world where everything is like DC 10-12, then a living god with stats of 15+ will be able to over come anything in his sleep.

2. A bit 'unfair' sure. The best thing to do (and what I do) is simply add +5 or more to all that characters DC's and such. That simply negates their 'supermanesss''. And in you want to let them roll for abilities, have them do it with you there.

3. No one ''always rolls high''. Dice are random. It's possible to roll say three characters in a row with all 16-18 abilities, but not too likely. In general, if a player ''always amazingly'' has high ability scores, then they are cheating.

4. don't involve the other players, just increase ''supermans'' DCs.

[demigodus]

2. A bit 'unfair' sure. The best thing to do (and what I do) is simply add +5 or more to all that characters DC's and such. That simply negates their 'supermanesss''. And in you want to let them roll for abilities, have them do it with you there.

4. don't involve the other players, just increase ''supermans'' DCs.

So the EXACT SAME TASK is harder for one character than all the others, because he is better? I am impressed that your players don't rage at you for this, because literally what you are doing is lying to them.

Straight up tell at the start of the game that you don't care about ability mods, or skill points, etc., for a challenge you will determine the roll needed, and they can just tell you what they rolled on a d20. Or if you just have issues with unbalanced ability scores, just tell them to not add their ability mods to their rolls, ever. Be honest with your players about it.

I honestly wouldn't recommend anyone else trying this method, because the players would be very justified in being mad at you lying to them. Much safer to just tell them that you will be ignoring the ability mods for all DCs when you have them make the characters. They are less likely to rage if you are being honest up front.

[eggs]

2. A bit 'unfair' sure. The best thing to do (and what I do) is simply add +5 or more to all that characters DC's and such. That simply negates their 'supermanesss''. And in you want to let them roll for abilities, have them do it with you there.
I'd have to wonder why you'd bother to roll stats if this is how things work. Isn't having randomized sets advantages and disadvantages the entire point?

[candycorn]

My dice rolling method is usually:

All members of the table roll 1 set of stats, and arrange them in order from high > low. Have the players choose an order.

Take the best stat of the 1st player. Then the 2nd best stat of the 2nd player. Continue until all stats are assigned, beginning again with the 1st player if needed.

So, if you had 3 players, and they rolled the following stats:

16, 16, 15, 14, 14, 10
18, 18, 13, 12, 10, 8
18, 17, 16, 16, 15, 14

The players order themselves 2, 3, 1.
So I take the first stat of the middle player (18). Then the 2nd stat of the bottom (17), then the 3rd of the top player (15). I continue with the 4th stat of the middle player (12), the 5th of the bottom (15), and the 6th of the top (10).

The resulting stats are 18,17,15,15,12,10. All players have those stats.

[classy one]

Honestly, when I DM I am really liberal with the starting stats. I think I let my players do 7d6b3 and reroll if it is less than 12. IMO and extra +1-3 modifier is a marginal benefit, and I want my players to feel awesome. It also let's me go really wild when I throw mobs that are 2-3 levels higher than them (with even better stats). I feel that with great stats I can really pull my punches instead of worrying about overwhelming my players.
Sure, it accelerated power creep, but it's fun and my players usually feel like complete bosses when they overcome clearly superior forces.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, if the person with lower stats builds a better character, they will be able to keep up. A single bad roll shouldn't require you to optimize just so you can contribute.

And that +2 CAN get up. Maybe in an single encounter it won't be that big of a deal, but over a large set of encounters, the one with better stats with do well more often.

If the ability is of equal importance to the guy that rolled 14 and the guy that rolled 18 there will -never- be more than a +2 difference between them, because they'll both be boosting it in the same manner. They'll both pick up a +X enhancer when they can afford it, and they'll both pick up the appropriate tome/manual of +X when it's available. If it's not of the same importance, then what does it matter if one is better than the other? There was likely going to be a difference there even under a point-buy.

On that minor difference showing over a longer series of encounters, where the law of averages makes it apparent: Would you want to play with someone so concerned with whose character is better that they actually tracked the numbers for, let's say 50, encounters? I know I wouldn't. That kind of excessively competetive mindset is completely missing the point of the game.

[Killer Angel]

A PC could have 18's in all their stats before adjustments and still be killed in the first combat. It's the luck of the dice rolls.
(snip)
Agreed that higher stats make a moderate difference at lower levels. When the PC's start leveling up, the game tends to balance itself out. Plus, in the PF game, the monsters tend to be a little tougher for lower CR.

See it this way: the character with Con 14, must invest 16k to have the bonuses you have for free with your 18. In the meantime, you're investing your 16k in miscellaneous magical equipment.

If it's really the same thing at mid-high levels, can please I have the character with all 18's in its stats? :smallamused:
(all 18 would be boring, but you get the point)

[SgtCarnage92]

I hadn't thought a lot about rolling technique until I saw a couple of posts in this thread. I know for a fact that the player in question tends to roll stats one die at a time instead of the whole set at once. Can this have an actual effect on the numbers generated or is it just one of those "player superstition" things?

[candycorn]

Reducing the number of dice rolled allows people skilled in dice rolling to reduce variables in rolling, and have a better chance of good rolls. I'd force all dice for a stat rolled at once.

[tiercel]

I hadn't thought a lot about rolling technique until I saw a couple of posts in this thread. I know for a fact that the player in question tends to roll stats one die at a time instead of the whole set at once. Can this have an actual effect on the numbers generated or is it just one of those "player superstition" things?

If the dice are fair and the player isn't trying anything nefarious, then it should make no difference.

If your player has a fancy special loaded die, then yeah, it makes a difference to roll only it, obviously. If the dice are fair but the player isn't, it's easier to fudge 4d6 if you roll them one at a time than if you roll them simultaneously ("that first die was, uh, a 5").

In general it's not worth worrying about, since cheating die rolls takes a lot of the point out of playing D&D.

_____


As for the OP -- I agree with the general sentiment that if you / your players want random rolls, you have to be ready to live with random results.... and if you can't trust your players during stat generation, how will you be able to trust them when it's time to confirm a critical hit, make a particularly important saving throw, roll initiative against your BBEG....

Granted, few rolls have the same persistence of effect as randomly rolled stats, but still.

If you are primarily concerned about party balance, you could suggest a more MAD character type so that your player can put his lucky rolls to work. Unless your other players have *much* worse rolls for their characters, chances are their choice of class and optimization level will matter more to party balance than stats, though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

See it this way: the character with Con 14, must invest 16k to have the bonuses you have for free with your 18. In the meantime, you're investing your 16k in miscellaneous magical equipment.

Again, the 14 con v 18 con is only going to be noticable if both characters have the same HD, the same base fort save, the same number of ranks in concentration, the same cloak of resistance, the same masterwork tool for concentration, and the same competence bonus item for concentration.

Unless they're both sporting D4's the difference in hp could be lost to random chance in the first HD roll. In all of the rest of the above there's still a D20 modifying, that +2 is only of very minor relevance.

Then of course there's the fact that all of the above being the same for two characters in the same game is -very- unlikely.

Comparing a barbarian and a wizard, the barbarian was always going to have more HP and a higher fort save, while the wizard was always going to have the higher concentration modifier.

To whit: Barb 20 con 14 +6 enhancement has 230hp a fort save bonus of +22 (+5 cloak of resistance) and a concentration mod of +2.

Wiz 20 with con 18 +6 enhancement has 190hp a +18 fort save modifier and +47 to concentration (+15 competence bonus)

Do you really think that Barb cares that the wizard has a higher base con score? Especially considering that he's going to have 6 more con when he rages?

Since rage can make such a larg-ish difference how about a fighter?

Ftr 20 with con 14 +6 enhancement has 210 hp, and the same fort save and concentration bonus as the barb above, but he can't add 3 to them by entering mighty rage.

how about a cleric?

Clr 20 with con 14: 190 hp +45 to concentrate, and the same fort save as the two melee types.

There we go...... But the cleric is in heavy armor and has the ability to cast heal if his hp start getting too low. The wizard can't do that without doing some splat diving.

having a difference of 2 in your con modifier doesn't seem like it's that big a deal now, huh?

Con being the one stat everyone wants makes this that much more poingant. Do you really think that a sorcerer with cha 15 is going to care a whit if the fighter is sporting a 20 (racial adjustment)? Do you think the rogue with 14 dex cares about the paladin's 18, that he can't even get full use out of because of his heavy armor?

As long as your important stat is high enough to do what you need it to do, does it really matter if another player has a higher number for that stat when it's a dump stat for him?

[Knaight]

1. It depends on your game, but yes it can be very unbalancing. The typical problem is when a DM tries to run a ''low magic, low fantasy, nitty gritty game'', a ''superman character'' can unbalance that quick. When you have a normal world where everything is like DC 10-12, then a living god with stats of 15+ will be able to over come anything in his sleep.

2. A bit 'unfair' sure. The best thing to do (and what I do) is simply add +5 or more to all that characters DC's and such. That simply negates their 'supermanesss''. And in you want to let them roll for abilities, have them do it with you there.

3. No one ''always rolls high''. Dice are random. It's possible to roll say three characters in a row with all 16-18 abilities, but not too likely. In general, if a player ''always amazingly'' has high ability scores, then they are cheating.

4. don't involve the other players, just increase ''supermans'' DCs.
1. Higher DCs than that show up all the time in mundane D&D, and given that ACP is likely in play, those high stats don't necessarily make 10-12 DCs certain. For instance, a slippery rough rock wall, hereafter referred to as basically any cliff after some rain or snow has a DC 30 climb check attached. Climbing up an unknotted rope is DC 15 (which is pretty ridiculous - I can do this, and any strength I have is a function of size, which translates into an increased mass to pull up cliffs. DC 10 is plenty for this. On the other hand, an increased strength score from something like Enlarged Person helps with climbing despite the much larger mass, so it's fundamentally broken anyways).

3. Fortunately, we don't need "always rolls high", we need "has had a high roll streak within a particular section of the game so far", and even then given the way the rolling system proposed works said high roll streak is less a streak and more a slight concentration of high rolls being next to each other with low rolls also being in the set.

2, 4. I see. So, things magically get harder because one person is better at them. I'm not sure how this is remotely compatible with simulating a world, or how it makes any sense, let alone how this could possibly be old school by your definition, but sure, this does technically work, as long as you don't really care about verisimilitude.

[Gamer Girl]

So the EXACT SAME TASK is harder for one character than all the others, because he is better? I am impressed that your players don't rage at you for this, because literally what you are doing is lying to them.

Yes, should a player attempt to cheat with ultra high ability scores, or anything else they will find the world against them.

And why would the players rage, it's not like the know....



Straight up tell at the start of the game that you don't care about ability mods, or skill points, etc., for a challenge you will determine the roll needed, and they can just tell you what they rolled on a d20. Or if you just have issues with unbalanced ability scores, just tell them to not add their ability mods to their rolls, ever. Be honest with your players about it.

I'm honest. My House Rules Booklet is long.



2, 4. I see. So, things magically get harder because one person is better at them. I'm not sure how this is remotely compatible with simulating a world, or how it makes any sense, let alone how this could possibly be old school by your definition, but sure, this does technically work, as long as you don't really care about verisimilitude.

Things only get harder for the power gaming roll playing cheater with an optimized character :)

How is it Old School.....I'm being Mean, Unfair and Unbalanced and changing the rules right out from under the players and they have no idea. Definitely Old School (New School would talk to the player over some tea and hug and such...)

[demigodus]

Yes, should a player attempt to cheat with ultra high ability scores, or anything else they will find the world against them.

wait... If you roll for stats, using a system decided upon by the DM, getting lucky is cheating? What? You do what the DM tells you, and you cheated? I think we are operating on slightly different definitions of cheating here...


And why would the players rage, it's not like the know....

It eventually gets found out. And then they rage because the DM lied to them. DM is a game of trust. Players need to trust the DM over a lot of things. Once the DM breaks that trust because he didn't have the balls to just talk to the player/admit their mistake, the game is ruined in my opinion.


Things only get harder for the power gaming roll playing cheater with an optimized character :)

Insulting people because they got lucky, or have a different style from you. Yup, definitely old school. And sounds utterly horrible.


How is it Old School.....I'm being Mean, Unfair and Unbalanced and changing the rules right out from under the players and they have no idea. Definitely Old School (New School would talk to the player over some tea and hug and such...)

So, New School handles it like mature adults that respect each other, and don't have trust issues... I like my New School :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

I hadn't thought a lot about rolling technique until I saw a couple of posts in this thread. I know for a fact that the player in question tends to roll stats one die at a time instead of the whole set at once. Can this have an actual effect on the numbers generated or is it just one of those "player superstition" things?

It is possible to be lucky over an extended sample since ultimately things will certainly hit the probability only with an infinite sample. I see no reason to punish a player for this.

It is, however, possible to get the number you want out of a die roll if you know which way it is when you toss it. This is how "professional" die rollers make money in the game. However, I'd be slow to suspect a player of intentionally cheating on rolls since that's not very nice and it's not an easy skill to pick up so I don't see why a player would go out of their way to.

[Gamer Girl]

wait... If you roll for stats, using a system decided upon by the DM, getting lucky is cheating? What? You do what the DM tells you, and you cheated? I think we are operating on slightly different definitions of cheating here...

Look when someone leaves the room and comes back a minute later and says ''oh while I was in the other room I rolled my abilities and look I got three 18's, two 16's and one 15! That is cheating.



It eventually gets found out. And then they rage because the DM lied to them. DM is a game of trust. Players need to trust the DM over a lot of things. Once the DM breaks that trust because he didn't have the balls to just talk to the player/admit their mistake, the game is ruined in my opinion.

Well, um, it never gets found out. We have different definitions of trust. My players (misguidedly) trust me by your definition of trust. But at the end of the night we all have a fun game and that is all that matters.




Insulting people because they got lucky, or have a different style from you. Yup, definitely old school. And sounds utterly horrible.

I don't insult people?




So, New School handles it like mature adults that respect each other, and don't have trust issues... I like my New School :smallbiggrin:

Well, that's one way to describe New School...

And it would be nice to always play the game with mature adults, but that is rarely possible.

[demigodus]

Look when someone leaves the room and comes back a minute later and says ''oh while I was in the other room I rolled my abilities and look I got three 18's, two 16's and one 15! That is cheating.

In all my groups when we rolled, you needed a witness (usually the DM) to use the stats. I kinda assumed that is normal.

Except in one game, where the DM told us to reroll where the total stat-modifier was 8 or higher... he kinda wasn't worried about people having very high scores.


Well, that's one way to describe New School...

And it would be nice to always play the game with mature adults, but that is rarely possible.

I honestly suggest getting a better group then... I wouldn't describe most of my group as mature adults, but we HAVE reached the point where we admit our mistakes/don't lie or cheat about stuff like this.

[Knaight]

Look when someone leaves the room and comes back a minute later and says ''oh while I was in the other room I rolled my abilities and look I got three 18's, two 16's and one 15! That is cheating.


It's not cheating if they actually rolled three eighteens, two sixteens, and one fifteen, only if they claimed they did and they didn't. Last I checked, leaving a particular room doesn't magically compel one to lie about their rolls. Making a character on ones own rather than at the table (a viable time saving mechanism, though one I dislike due to what it usually does to group cohesion) doesn't magically compel one to lie about their rolls. Your only evidence is that this particular roll set isn't particularly likely, and you could apply that to pretty much every roll. "You rolled a 27, then a 66, then a 47 on a d100? Why should I trust you when you said that, there's only a .0001% chance of that happening."

[Gamer Girl]

In all my groups when we rolled, you needed a witness (usually the DM) to use the stats. I kinda assumed that is normal.

I honestly suggest getting a better group then... I wouldn't describe most of my group as mature adults, but we HAVE reached the point where we admit our mistakes/don't lie or cheat about stuff like this.

I play with a lot of groups. My three Core Groups are the good gamers that I'm friends with and trust(your way). However I also have like a dozen 'other' games, full of people I don't know and don't trust. I could waste two hours of game time telling a player that they can't have something and them arguing back or I can 'ignore it' and secretly take away the cheated advantage.

[Alabenson]

Yes, should a player attempt to cheat with ultra high ability scores, or anything else they will find the world against them.

And why would the players rage, it's not like the know....

First of all, your assuming the player cheated on his ability rolls with no concrete evidence. The OP has a fairly generous rolling system, so high scores are to be expected. Furthermore, if you really don't trust that the player honestly rolled his scores, then you should confront the problem out in the open instead of passive agressively jacking up DCs for that one player.

Secondly, do you really think the player won't notice that he consistently has to roll five points higher than the other players?


Things only get harder for the power gaming roll playing cheater with an optimized character :)

Again, you're accusing the player of cheating with no real proof, and singling him out if he tries to build an effective character.

If you really can't trust your player, then confront them about it, don't turn the game into a passive-aggressive arms plaver vs. DM arms race. That's the sort of situation that noone wins in.


How is it Old School.....I'm being Mean, Unfair and Unbalanced and changing the rules right out from under the players and they have no idea. Definitely Old School (New School would talk to the player over some tea and hug and such...)

Yes, arbitrarily stacking the deck against a player because you think he might have cheated, when you aren't willing to face the problem head on, is in fact Mean, Unfair, and Unbalanced.

If you consider New School to be actually talking to your player's as though they were actual people, then yes, the New School approach would be superior in this case.

[mcv]

I've played with the rule that if all your ability modifiers add up to less than +2 or more than +4 (for example), you reroll.

But you need to specify such restrictions in advance. If you allow for luck and someone gets lucky, just accept it. Subtly compensate by having the others find more suitable magic items earlier. But don't screw the lucky guy over completely!

If you want really random and not point buy (because of the inherent minmaxing), you could also use the following:

Roll 15 dice (or more if you want higher stats). All stats start at 8. Every 1 rolled adds one to Strength, every 2 to Dex, etc. Completely random and yet every player gets the same average stats.

The biggest downside of this is that 18 is not the maximum anymore. If you roll 15 6s, you start with a Charisma of 23. On the other hand, a large number of dice is likely to result in most stats being about average. If you want bigger extremes, add some coloured dice that count double or triple.

I haven't tested this yet, but I think it could be really interesting.

[Philistine]

@OP: This has already been stated, but it's important enough to repeat. You do not have anywhere near enough evidence to even suspect Mr. High Stats of "cheating" at this point. If he rolled them in your presence but you didn't pay attention, sorry dude, but that's on you.

If you're concerned about party balance, you might try letting everyone use Mr. High Stats's array, arranged as appropriate for their characters. This is IMO much less likely to cause friction than arbitrarily nerfing one character because the player "rolled too well" - especially when the chance of rolling well is the reason your group continues to cling to this particular stat generation method! But next time, maybe use Point Buy? 32 or 36 PB generally are enough for MAD classes to function, and you can always go higher if that better fits your players' expectations. Best of all, with PB this whole question just plain goes away.

Finally, in case you hadn't noticed, none of the advice given will be good for all tables - but with that said, some of the ideas suggested are clearly going to be much more widely applicable than others.

[RFLS]

Look when someone leaves the room and comes back a minute later and says ''oh while I was in the other room I rolled my abilities and look I got three 18's, two 16's and one 15! That is cheating.



Well, um, it never gets found out. We have different definitions of trust. My players (misguidedly) trust me by your definition of trust. But at the end of the night we all have a fun game and that is all that matters.




I don't insult people?




Well, that's one way to describe New School...

And it would be nice to always play the game with mature adults, but that is rarely possible.

Point 1 would be a straw man argument... He said the player got lucky. He didn't say "the player left the room and got 'lucky'."

Point 2 is openly admitting that you lie to your players. How that's interpreted is left to, you know. Your players.

Point 3: You constantly insult people. You're absolutely convinced that anyone that doesn't play "Old School" isn't really playing D&D, and should have their dice taken away.

Point 4- I'd say that mature adults, for starters, don't a) lie to people, and b) tell other people that their definition of fun is wrong.

[killem2]

Regardless of what rolls were, D&D has plenty of ways of making a couple high scores... trivial. :biggrin:

[jaybird]

I play with a lot of groups. My three Core Groups are the good gamers that I'm friends with and trust(your way). However I also have like a dozen 'other' games, full of people I don't know and don't trust. I could waste two hours of game time telling a player that they can't have something and them arguing back or I can 'ignore it' and secretly take away the cheated advantage.

You, in fact, are the cheater. You lie to your players and get your jollies from GM fiat-ing their power away. If you don't think they're mature enough to deal with pre-stated bans, just kick them out. Don't deceive them and then act all high and mighty about it.

[silverwolfer]

Point 1 would be a straw man argument... He said the player got lucky. He didn't say "the player left the room and got 'lucky'."

Point 2 is openly admitting that you lie to your players. How that's interpreted is left to, you know. Your players.

Point 3: You constantly insult people. You're absolutely convinced that anyone that doesn't play "Old School" isn't really playing D&D, and should have their dice taken away.

Point 4- I'd say that mature adults, for starters, don't a) lie to people, and b) tell other people that their definition of fun is wrong.


If we played old school, girl gamer would be in the kitchen, while the men played D&D XD

[TuggyNE]

If we played old school, girl gamer would be in the kitchen, while the men played D&D XD

*facepalm*

Thank you for that mature contribution to the discussion.

[Alaris]

My questions to the playground follow:
Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

Thanks guys, you guys tend to give lots of perspectives on these sort of things.

1. I believe it would be unfair to nerf it, or roll another set.

2. Some people are naturally lucky, but... I would be concerned if it's happening that often. Check the dice, and then ask him if he has played craps. If he does, he knows how to roll D6s to get high.

3. Allowing the other players to roll until they get high stats like his would infact be unfair to him. He may just be lucky.

All in all, my final recommendation would honestly be, since it appears to be bothering you, to use Point Buy.

Unrelated, I am currently running a 3.5 campaign where one of my PCs is playing a +2 LA race with +2 to 3 stats (so a total of +6).

Her lowest stat is 16, and the highest is 18. One of the highest stat characters in my game, and has not broken it yet.

[RFLS]

If we played old school, girl gamer would be in the kitchen, while the men played D&D XD

...I don't even know how to respond to this. At least Gamer didn't make me want to take down the internet in order to avoid her responses.

[Psyborg]

Our characters typically get an 18 and an 8; roll 4d6b3 reroll ones for the other four. Arrange however you want.

Ensures everyone has one good stat and one weakness, and keeps things interesting.

[Dr Bwaa]

As others have said, if you allow rolling you need to be ready to accept preposterous rolls. I played a game once where the maximum starting value for any stat was 16, and I rolled (with 7x (4d6 drop lowest) drop lowest) 18, 18, 17, 17, 15, 14. We were allowed to rearrange the scores we rolled, if any were over 16, using point-buy values--so I ended up with 16s across the board, with points left over. It happens, especially with generous rolling schemes, and you need to be prepared for it. I do also absolutely recommend having your players do their rolling in front of you in the first place, so when stuff like this happens there's no lingering concerns about fudging stat rolls.

As to your actual question, no, I don't think the high rolls are likely to unbalance your game. It'll pan out as a bit of extra in the character's non-priority abilities at low levels and eventually become more or less irrelevant. If you're starting at level five, you've already skipped most of the levels at which the extra +1 or +2 would make a serious difference (you know, the levels where the wizard only has like five spells so he's using a crossbow half the time, the Rogue can't feint in combat yet so there's more brawling than sneak-attacking, etc).

[BShammie]

If we played old school, girl gamer would be in the kitchen, while the men played D&D XD

... Totally an appropriate response.
:smallsigh:

If you're going to insult someone, at least have the decency to remember their name.



Is having a player with this much power in all areas really that unbalancing?

Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

Is there such thing as people who always roll high for stats or should I be concerned that the dice are unbalanced?

Should I allow the other players to roll until they get a set close to the power of this player so that I'm not "punishing him for doing well" as he would argue?

1) Not necessarily. Like others have said, it depends on the individual player's optimization level, the ability scores of other members of the group, the optimization of the other character's in the group, and whatever you put the player's up against.
2) A little bit, yes.
3) The dice may be unbalanced, but I suppose the person may be cheating. I doubt he did though. People roll high scores all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean they cheated.
4) I don't see why not. The player isn't being punished, the other players are being rewarded.
Alternatively, you can work out his point buy value and give all of the other players that.

[Spuddles]

Ability scores in general kinda stop mattering around 10th level save for Init, Spellcasting stats, prereqs, and ability damage. You could give everyone straight 18's across the board for a 12th level campaign and it would barely make a difference.

This holds to be mostly true in my experience, as well. High scores at level 5 will be considerably less noticeable than at level 1.

[Pigkappa]

This holds to be mostly true in my experience, as well. High scores at level 5 will be considerably less noticeable than at level 1.
Constitution.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Constitution.

The notable exception.

Though I outlined above why, though notable, it's not exceptionally noteable.

[lunar2]

a couple of points.

1. he didn't cheat unless you have evidence that he cheated. did you, or anyone else, see him do a funny roll? if not, then the rolls stand.

2. never deliberately weaken a character after the fact through fiat. you're just going to piss off the player, even if it's something stealth like raising DCs just for him. he will eventually notice if he is at all observant, and he will get mad that you punished him for getting lucky. you may even lose a player doing stupid crap like that.

3. use the same rules for everyone. if you give everyone else extra to compensate for his luck, then you are punishing him for being lucky, because you aren't giving him the same things you give the rest of the party. they all had the exact same chance to get those numbers.

[Gigas Breaker]

GamerGirl is providing a valuable service in demonstrating how not to behave. We owe her a debt of gratitude.

Really point buy is the way to go.

[Knaight]

If we played old school, girl gamer would be in the kitchen, while the men played D&D XD

This is an impressive statement. To fit such aversion to anything that might even resemble class in a sentence, while also exacerbating existing stereotypes that gaming used to be entirely male and erase the experiences of female gamers, all while making a "woman in the kitchen" joke in one sentence is impressive. Now, excuse me while I go vomit.

[Felandria]

When I rolled my character, I used the roll 4 and drop the lowest one system.

I ended up with 17, 16, 15, 15, 13, 13.

If I would have had to nerf that, I would have been pretty sore.

[xsinx]

Haven't read the whole conversation and I'm just finding about it now. I've always had issues with rolls myself. It leaves something that is too important to chance. Having a string of bad rolls really sucks, and having another player in the same game end up with good scores makes it even worse.

We're currently making characters for a new game and I suggested we all use the same rolls, but rearrange them as we like. We didn't even use rolls, we stated that all players have a 18, 17, 16, 15, 14 and 13. Give or take level stats, racials and eventually equipment, it allows us a good deal of flexibility. None of the scores are bad, but then again there's enough of average scores in there to make for tougher choices.

Of course, if you are going to use rolls, make them public and verified, this way there won't be any drama about cheating and what not.

[RFLS]

None of the scores are bad, but then again there's enough of average scores in there to make for tougher choices.

So, (I'm not criticizing your group or w/e) there are no average scores in your set- 13 is within a standard deviation of normal, but none of them are actually normal. They're all above normal.

[Uncensored]

Would it be unfair to ask him to nerf it or roll another set?

Kinda, yeah.

My recommendation is to make sure that the rest of the party is in a similar place, stat-wise. If nothing else, give everybody the same numbers that he got and let them place them where they wish.

It's not an ideal solution, but it works well.

I find that letting people use the same set of numbers for every character they make is a lot of fun, and it makes character creation a breeze. I generally use 18, 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, although using another set could work as well. This loadout, though, usually means that players aren't constrained and are able to flesh out characters they like.

[xsinx]

So, (I'm not criticizing your group or w/e) there are no average scores in your set- 13 is within a standard deviation of normal, but none of them are actually normal. They're all above normal.

LOL, I'm not going to disagree with you but that's how we roll :) To quote my DM: "You guys are heroes, not commoners", hehe. Makes the players happy and it's easily balanced on the other end. We also play Gestalt, so it allows for more flexibility in class choices.

Back to the core of the idea, the numbers are irrelevant, the DM can choose anything he wants, or even roll them. The bottom line is that everyone ends up with the same starting package and can then shuffle things as they want. Gets rid of potential cheating, bad luck, etc.

[RFLS]

LOL, I'm not going to disagree with you but that's how we roll :) To quote my DM: "You guys are heroes, not commoners", hehe. Makes the players happy and it's easily balanced on the other end. We also play Gestalt, so it allows for more flexibility in class choices.

Back to the core of the idea, the numbers are irrelevant, the DM can choose anything he wants, or even roll them. The bottom line is that everyone ends up with the same starting package and can then shuffle things as they want. Gets rid of potential cheating, bad luck, etc.

Nifty; I've always wanted to play in a high power gestalt game. Those higher stats seem like they'd be of benefit to the melee classes, too, which is nice.

[Spuddles]

Constitution.

Only for stuff with d4 and d6 hit dice. Well mostly. The variability on d10s and d12s is pretty high, which means with only 4 rolls, con can matter very little. Even 20 levels of rolling for hp leads to pretty variable hp scores. You need quite a bit of con to wash that out.

[Eldariel]

Only for stuff with d4 and d6 hit dice. Well mostly. The variability on d10s and d12s is pretty high, which means with only 4 rolls, con can matter very little. Even 20 levels of rolling for hp leads to pretty variable hp scores. You need quite a bit of con to wash that out.

Well, this is only true for things with rolled HD. Everything with averaged HD (e.g. creatures in the MM) and every game that uses averaged HDs keeps the importance of Con quite straight throughout the hit dice.

[Spuddles]

Well, this is only true for things with rolled HD. Everything with averaged HD (e.g. creatures in the MM) and every game that uses averaged HDs keeps the importance of Con quite straight throughout the hit dice.

Monsters are kind of unrelated to the discussion, given that they have fixed ability scores and don't whine about party balance. Totally valid point with avg hp rolls, but I would assume any table with that houserule in play would use a similarily fair and sane method for stat generation.

[Lord_Gareth]

GamerGirl is providing a valuable service in demonstrating how not to behave. We owe her a debt of gratitude.

Really point buy is the way to go.

This post is accurate.

[Killer Angel]

4. don't involve the other players, just increase ''supermans'' DCs.


So the EXACT SAME TASK is harder for one character than all the others, because he is better?

Of course I'm with demigodus, but...
In 4e, doesn't skill difficulty scale with the level of the character attempting it? Now we have a precedent! :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

Of course I'm with demigodus, but...
In 4e, doesn't skill difficulty scale with the level of the character attempting it? Now we have a precedent! :smalltongue:

4e is old school?

I'm aware that that's not exactly the recommendation of that much-maligned page, but it's a joke.

[Killer Angel]

4e is old school?

I'm aware that that's not exactly the recommendation of that much-maligned page, but it's a joke.

Of course! follow my logic reasoning:

There was all this debate about "oh, noes! 4e is like WoW and MMORPGs, roleplay and D&D is dead", and "But nothing stops you from roleplaying with 4e, if you want to!".
And given that Real Role Play is clearly the mark of OldSchool(TM)... the equation is that 4e is old school :smalltongue:

[Andreaz]

Of course! follow my logic reasoning:

There was all this debate about "oh, noes! 4e is like WoW and MMORPGs, roleplay and D&D is dead", and "But nothing stops you from roleplaying with 4e, if you want to!".
And given that Real Role Play is clearly the mark of OldSchool(TM)... the equation is that 4e is old school :smalltongue:

Has, Contains, Envelops. Not "Is".

[CreganTur]

Playing in a high powered game. Stat generation was 4d6s, rerolling any 1's and dropping the lowest die.

We tried something new that one of our new members used to do with his old group- everyone puts their generated strings on the table and anyone can use any string.

The most popular one was: 18, 16, 16, 16, 15, 13

[Knaight]

Of course I'm with demigodus, but...
In 4e, doesn't skill difficulty scale with the level of the character attempting it? Now we have a precedent! :smalltongue:

This feature probably received more backlash than everything else put together, with the possible exceptions of the AEDU systems and the 5 foot diagonals. If it didn't do so, it should have.

[demigodus]

Of course I'm with demigodus, but...
In 4e, doesn't skill difficulty scale with the level of the character attempting it? Now we have a precedent! :smalltongue:

The way it was explained to me, in 4e you just have DCs for "easy", "medium", and "difficult" tasks. And as you level, the same tasks should drop in categories for you.

[PersonMan]

I know someone who has amazing luck with rolls. Unless he knows some trick to, without doing anything out of the ordinary, you can control your rolls, he just has a 'magic touch' that makes his stat rolls really good. As a result, whenever we play with rolled stats his are very high. When I DM and don't use PB, I just say something like 'everyone roll [1 or 2, depending on the number of players] stats, the final set will be what you all use' to get a good mix of results.

[HalfGrammarGeek]

The way it was explained to me, in 4e you just have DCs for "easy", "medium", and "difficult" tasks. And as you level, the same tasks should drop in categories for you.
A 4e DM somewhere might do it that way, but the way that the DMG suggests setting DCs is as follows: Say you're writing an intro dungeon adventure, and you want some doors that are fairly easy to break down and some that are hard. So you look at the chart, and cross reference the Medium column with the Level 1 row; those are the dungeon's rusty dry-rotted doors. Then you cross reference the Hard column with the Level 1 row; those are your dungeon's relatively intact doors.

So then your level 1 party goes thru the dungeon, has a blast, goes on to other adventures, and then comes back twenty levels later. The doors have the exact same DCs they did at level 1. (Unless of course some BBEG took over after the level 1 dungeon crawl and installed Baatorian green steel doors or something.)

[Rubik]

What if you have everyone roll and then let everyone choose which array they want to use? Not everyone has to use the same array, but they get the choice of which one.

That way if one player rolls 18, 14, 14, 14, 12, 12 and another rolls 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 one can take the 18 if they have a SAD build and the other can take the 16s of they have a MAD one.

[MukkTB]

Did someone watch him roll? If yes then I don't see the problem in your game.

Rolling for stats is inherently unfair. You end up with players being much weaker or stronger than each other. I'm sure you'd complain if I started a chess game with 3 more pieces than you. If you only intended for characters to be strong, but you wanted them balanced, you should have gone to point buy.