Stat Gen: 24d6, drop lowest six

[JackRackham]

....and arrange (dice, not number-by-number) as desired. I'm thinking rolls less than 66 (average of 11) or maybe 70 would warrant a re-roll. I mean the dice are the same as rolling 4d6 six times, except the overall will tend to be slightly higher, as sometimes a 5 or six will be wasted in the other method. Really the main thing with this is that it gives some of the control of point buy - you can make a min-maxed or a more balanced character, fitting multiple character concepts - but keeps the fun of rolling (and some of the organic feel, as all characters will not be equal).

Thoughts?

EDIT: I guess I should specify that I'm talking about rearranging dice after the roll into sets of three, each set representing an attribute. I would have thought that would be obvious, but there you go.

[kreenlover]

I know that I use this method for all of my characters. However, it can make VERY unbalanced characters.

Ex.

Stabby the warblade rolled a
66666
55555
44444
33
222

he now has
str 18
dex 16
con 16
int 13
wis 12
cha 6

See the problem? You can load all your good ones into one or two stats. However, if you are fine with that (like my DM and I) then it all works :smallbiggrin:

Sorry. deleted those by accident. Fixed now :smallredface:

[Amphetryon]

You all but guarantee an unmodified 18 with this system. You are almost as certain to have an unmodified 15 or 16 to go with it. Unless the Player(s) are actively averse to the idea, you'll also all but guarantee that each Character using this method has an unmodified 7 or lower in one stat.

Is this within your intended range?

[JackRackham]

I know that I use this method for all of my characters. However, it can make VERY unbalanced characters.

Ex.

Stabby the warblade rolled a
5
44444
33
222

he now has
str 18
dex 16
con 16
int 13
wis 12
cha 6

See the problem? You can load all your good ones into one or two stats. However, if you are fine with that (like my DM and I) then it all works :smallbiggrin:

I don't understand your rolls, but ok.

[Renen]

Whats to understand? He gave you an example, showing how easy it is to get veeery good stats

[JackRackham]

You all but guarantee an unmodified 18 with this system. You are almost as certain to have an unmodified 15 or 16 to go with it. Unless the Player(s) are actively averse to the idea, you'll also all but guarantee that each Character using this method has an unmodified 7 or lower in one stat.

Is this within your intended range?

You're assuming the player wants that, though. If you're playing a wizard, sure, you'll load up on INT and CON and 'who cares what the rest is?' But, playing a Rogue-type, for example, how many true dump stats do you really have? Even a Cleric is going to want STR, CON, CHA and WIS, and won't take a complete dump in DEX.

Anyway, this gives you the option of making the sort of character you want (as opposed to having kind of a jack-of-all-trades in mind, then rolling up a character with a couple 18s and corresponding 8s). But it doesn't put everyone on an artificially level playing field.


Whats to understand? He gave you an example, showing how easy it is to get veeery good stats

He only listed 11 numbers. Soooooo, either he's representing his rolls in an odd way, or he misunderstood what I was suggesting. There should be 18 numbers.

[Crake]

Whats to understand? He gave you an example, showing how easy it is to get veeery good stats

except the numbers dont add up. How does a set of rolls with no 6's get an 18?

[kreenlover]

it doesn't matter what we think, but what your fellow players and DM thinks. That aside, I am for it

[JackRackham]

I know that I use this method for all of my characters. However, it can make VERY unbalanced characters.

Ex.

Stabby the warblade rolled a
66666
55555
44444
33
222

he now has
str 18
dex 16
con 16
int 13
wis 12
cha 6

See the problem? You can load all your good ones into one or two stats. However, if you are fine with that (like my DM and I) then it all works :smallbiggrin:

Sorry. deleted those by accident. Fixed now :smallredface:

Ah, I see now. Well, that's a 43 point buy, which is very good, but a lot of people go with 42 point buy anyway. I've rolled it out four or five times now and it's been pretty consistent in that ballpark (keeping in mind that I'm arranging it in such a way as to maximize the point buy; more evenly distributed, these same dice would result in a lower buy, but fit certain archetypes and characters better).

[Amphetryon]

You're assuming the player wants that, though. If you're playing a wizard, sure, you'll load up on INT and CON and 'who cares what the rest is?' But, playing a Rogue-type, for example, how many true dump stats do you really have? Even a Cleric is going to want STR, CON, CHA and WIS, and won't take a complete dump in DEX.

Anyway, this gives you the option of making the sort of character you want (as opposed to having kind of a jack-of-all-trades in mind, then rolling up a character with a couple 18s and corresponding 8s). But it doesn't put everyone on an artificially level playing field.



He only listed 11 numbers. Soooooo, either he's representing his rolls in an odd way, or he misunderstood what I was suggesting. There should be 18 numbers.No, I'm not 'assuming the Player wants that.' I specifically said that "unless the Player(s) are actively averse to" the idea (meaning they intentionally work the numbers to avoid it), they'll wind up with a very low dump stat and 2 stats at or above 3.X's default array line of 15 14 13 12 11 8. That's what I said.

Playing a Rogue type, I'd happily dump CHA (because Skills more than make up for it) and wouldn't need WIS or STR especially. . . but I wouldn't need to dump either of them into negative numbers with this system unless the Dice Gawds hated me, and I could still expect an 18 or, at minimum, 17 DEX with 12 INT and CON (one all but certainly higher than 14, but both at least 12), which works just fine. 18 (or 17) 15 12 12 10 7 is not at all outside the realm of probability with this system, or a Player can instead sacrifice that 15 to (generally) wind up with a 13 and another 12 instead of the 7; do you have a concept that can't function with that statline?

[koboldish]

As opposed to 24 dropping six, how about 20 dropping 2? That seems slightly more balanced to me.

[JackRackham]

No, I'm not 'assuming the Player wants that.' I specifically said that "unless the Player(s) are actively averse to" the idea (meaning they intentionally work the numbers to avoid it), they'll wind up with a very low dump stat and 2 stats at or above 3.X's default array line of 15 14 13 12 11 8. That's what I said.

Playing a Rogue type, I'd happily dump CHA (because Skills more than make up for it) and wouldn't need WIS or STR especially. . . but I wouldn't need to dump either of them into negative numbers with this system unless the Dice Gawds hated me, and I could still expect an 18 or, at minimum, 17 DEX with 12 INT and CON (one all but certainly higher than 14, but both at least 12), which works just fine. 18 (or 17) 15 12 12 10 7 is not at all outside the realm of probability with this system, or a Player can instead sacrifice that 15 to (generally) wind up with a 13 and another 12 instead of the 7; do you have a concept that can't function with that statline?
Mechanically, you're right. But I often enjoy making a character who's maybe above average in a lot of ways, but not especially talented except for his wits (ie: no dump stats, average or better scores all around, INT as high as possible).

My bad on missing that disclaimer in your 1st post.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So, the way I see it, methods of determining stats have two axis they're judged along - randomness vs. stability.

Rolling stats in order with no rerolls is the best example of the first - you wind up with something out of your control to work with (which can be very inspiring), and there's a great deal of luck involved, which is exciting. Yay randomness. However, you may not get stats that let you play the character you want, and some people can end up with things wildly more or less powerful than the rest of the party. Boo randomness.

Point buy is the best example of the second; you absolutely know what you get. The wizard can make sure he has a high casting stat, the fighter gets his strength, etc. Yay stability. However, this also means that you get very similar characters - wizards will pretty much always have high INT and low STR, because people don't feel they can afford to make mechanical choices over RP ones. Boo Randomness.

My current solution is to give players an option between the following two systems, each of which tries to start from one direction and "Fix things" towards the other.

Option A:
Roll 4d6 six times, in order, taking the best three each time, Roll 6d6 twice, taking the best three each time, and swap stats in where needed. For every so many points beneath average you end up at, you get a bonus feat. This preserves randomness, while making sure that pretty much any build will be functional (hopefully), and means that characters with low rolls aren't totally screwed, because, hey, bonus feats.

Option B:
Create a 32 point buy. After your decisions are finalized, roll 3d6, six times, in order. For each stat, pick the higher of what you chose or what you rolled. Players can be certain of getting the build they need this way, but still have that excitement that comes with luck - and, since they're most likely to get a random edge to a stat they didn't really need anyway, it's more-or-less balanced.

[SowZ]

I like this system, personally, if Point Buys and array aren't options. You can always add the limitation that they can't arrange a stat to start at less then 8. This keeps them from being too min-maxy, but still allows a good degree of it. To go along with this, I would say re-roll ones but you only roll 18d6. Which ends up with slightly lower stats but fewer possibilities for total dumps.

[Jacque]

My group uses this system. In order to ensure some stat balance in between the group, a roll of 71 or less means you can reroll and a roll of 85 og higher means you get dumped down to 84. So all characters' stats have an average between 12 and 14.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I used this with a new group - once.
We found that we got some widely differing results. "Average" becomes the new bad, and multiple maximum scores becomes the new normal.
We ditched it favour of default array and points buy shortly after.

[killem2]

I think it looks pretty cool, I wouldn't mind trying it.

[molten_dragon]

....and arrange (dice, not number-by-number) as desired. I'm thinking rolls less than 66 (average of 11) or maybe 70 would warrant a re-roll. I mean the dice are the same as rolling 4d6 six times, except the overall will tend to be slightly higher, as sometimes a 5 or six will be wasted in the other method. Really the main thing with this is that it gives some of the control of point buy - you can make a min-maxed or a more balanced character, fitting multiple character concepts - but keeps the fun of rolling (and some of the organic feel, as all characters will not be equal).

Thoughts?

EDIT: I guess I should specify that I'm talking about rearranging dice after the roll into sets of three, each set representing an attribute. I would have thought that would be obvious, but there you go.

It wouldn't be my first (or second, or third) choice for determining ability scores, but I would prefer it to the standard 4d6 drop the lowest, and I wouldn't refuse to play in a game that used the system or anything.

[OrganicGolem]

Really, if you can allocate whichever dice to stats I don't see a point in dropping anything. 18d6, and gogo!

[SowZ]

Really, if you can allocate whichever dice to stats I don't see a point in dropping anything. 18d6, and gogo!

Say you get four 6s, two 5s, five 4s, three 3s, one 2, and three 1s.

If you want one 18 and one 16, you use the dice up. You are now out of fives and sixes. Even if you want to average everything else out, you can get 10, 8, 8, 8. This isn't bad, IMO. You got an 18 and a 16. But you end up with a lot of dump stats to get those high stats.

[koboldish]

... I did some testing, dropping anything seems pretty OP... Mabye 18d6, reroll 2 ones? I like the feel of rolling rather that point buys. I would also say always roll for starting gold... Anyone else have ideas for things that could be made random?

[ericgrau]

It's very easy to have a set of high stats by grouping the highest numbers together first. It's also easier to group for even numbers. For example I got:
18,16,16,14,12,9. 47 point buy.
18,14,10,6,6,6. ~24 point buy.
18,14,14,10,7,6. ~30 point buy.
16,16,15,12,9,8. ~33 point buy.
18,14,12,12,10,9. 31 point buy.

I had 2 odd numbers on the 4th set because 17/15 and 9/7/5 are almost the only pairs where you can't swap a die to get -1 to one stat and +1 to the other. It is rare to have your odd numbers this far apart. I left out 3 more combos with 3 because a 3 stat is almost impossible with this system.

[JackRackham]

... I did some testing, dropping anything seems pretty OP... Mabye 18d6, reroll 2 ones? I like the feel of rolling rather that point buys. I would also say always roll for starting gold... Anyone else have ideas for things that could be made random?

The main problem with that is that you WILL end up with ones, forcing you to accept either a pathetically low stat, sacrifice your main stat, or have every stat other than your main stat be pretty low. This is fine for certain classes....

[ericgrau]

For that I got 14,10,9,8,8,5. Granted luck could easily add or subtract 2 from everything, but I think it's still a bit low. If I was less lazy I'd program my spreadsheet to make 1000 rolls.

[SowZ]

I would make it 18d6, re-roll 1s, not allowed to have a dump lower than 8. The lack of ones makes stats lower than 8 a lot less likely. If that is impossible to do, wow your numbers are bad, re-roll. Also re-roll if your positive doesn't at least double your negative modifiers.

As for it getting more even numbers, that certainly isn't something that imbalances this method at all seeing as with PB you have even greater control of evening your stats. I view the even stats as a very positive thing.

[ddude987]

I would make it 18d6, re-roll 1s, not allowed to have a dump lower than 8. The lack of ones makes stats lower than 8 a lot less likely. If that is impossible to do, wow your numbers are bad, re-roll. Also re-roll if your positive doesn't at least double your negative modifiers.

As for it getting more even numbers, that certainly isn't something that imbalances this method at all seeing as with PB you have even greater control of evening your stats. I view the even stats as a very positive thing.

I calculated the average point by assuming you use the numbers in order largest to smallest to make your point by (as that results in the highest one) and stats smaller than 8 were worth -1 cumulatively. I got the average point by to be about 36 (the real number was 36.2 or so) but I got that by brute forcing about 1 million simulations of rolling 24d6 which isn't close the the real number of outcomes, which is 10^18.

[Rejusu]

I like the system our group uses, standard 4d6 drop lowest but we roll two or three sets and pick one of them (a complete set, there's no mixing or matching between them). You're not guaranteed great stats but it also alleviates some of the randomness as a single bad set won't screw you over.

[nobodez]

Well, my GM does have a rather … unique method.

3d6 six times in order.
If the sum is less than 78, re-roll.
Once you have your total, you thn get 5 point-buy points to allocate.

My first character had a 78 sum (eventually), and my second has an 85 (ends up as something line a 47 PF point buy, but you're stuck with high non-relevant stats, limiting your choice of classes).

[Jack_Simth]

....and arrange (dice, not number-by-number) as desired. I'm thinking rolls less than 66 (average of 11) or maybe 70 would warrant a re-roll. I mean the dice are the same as rolling 4d6 six times, except the overall will tend to be slightly higher, as sometimes a 5 or six will be wasted in the other method. Really the main thing with this is that it gives some of the control of point buy - you can make a min-maxed or a more balanced character, fitting multiple character concepts - but keeps the fun of rolling (and some of the organic feel, as all characters will not be equal).

Thoughts?

EDIT: I guess I should specify that I'm talking about rearranging dice after the roll into sets of three, each set representing an attribute. I would have thought that would be obvious, but there you go.
So something like....
Rolled (roughly the expected distribution):
6666
5555
4444
3333
2222
1111
= 24 dice.

Drop lowest six:
6666
5555
4444
3333
22

Arrange to suit in groups of three:
666=18
655=16
554=14
444=12
333=9
322=8

Alt for someone who wants fewer complete dump stats:
666=18
655=16
444=12
433=10
325=10
325=10

[Divide by Zero]

Well, my GM does have a rather … unique method.

3d6 six times in order.
If the sum is less than 78, re-roll.
Once you have your total, you thn get 5 point-buy points to allocate.

My first character had a 78 sum (eventually), and my second has an 85 (ends up as something line a 47 PF point buy, but you're stuck with high non-relevant stats, limiting your choice of classes).

While I would be ok with most of the methods in this thread, I don't think I would ever play using a system that doesn't allow me to choose which stats get which numbers. Let me play the character I want to play, not the character the dice let me play.

[nobodez]

While I would be ok with most of the methods in this thread, I don't think I would ever play using a system that doesn't allow me to choose which stats get which numbers. Let me play the character I want to play, not the character the dice let me play.

Well, she has two other methods (4d6 drop the lowest eight times then drop the highest and lowest rolls and PF 20 point buy), but the 3d6 straight is the most powerful.

[JackRackham]

So something like....
Rolled (roughly the expected distribution):
6666
5555
4444
3333
2222
1111
= 24 dice.

Drop lowest six:
6666
5555
4444
3333
22

Arrange to suit in groups of three:
666=18
655=16
554=14
444=12
333=9
322=8

Alt for someone who wants fewer complete dump stats:
666=18
655=16
444=12
433=10
325=10
325=10

Yeah, exactly like that.

I mean, this system ends up with higher stats, on average, than most people use, and I get that. But I personally prefer that, as I think it benefits lower-tier characters more than higher-tier characters, and they need every possible edge to stay relevant.

[koboldish]

... I would still suggest 18d6 dropping nothing, although you made a valid point on classes of higher tiers. Just my opinion though.