PDA

View Full Version : Luckiest attribute roll ever



Techmagss
2013-06-19, 03:24 PM
Or, why you should always use dice rolls

So I just rolled a new character and this is his attributes (not counting Lizardfolk bonuses)
16 STR
18 dex
13 con
15 wis
12 intelligence
11 cha

Adding and taking away lizard bonuses it's
18 STR
15 con
10 int
15 wis
18 DEX
11 CHA

In other words, rolling attributes is a risky buisness but CAN pay off
He's a ranger by the way, first level
So he can flatten anything that stands in his way.
Fun!

Ashdate
2013-06-19, 03:36 PM
If a DM REALLY wants his or her players to roll dice for attributes, fine. But I'm not so sure it's really a compliment to the practice when it has as good a chance of creating a powerful character as it does of giving you a particular weak one. If instead of 18/16/15/13/12/11 you had rolled 15/12/11/10/9/6, would you be praising its merits so?

It comes as no surprise that there have been various safeguards built into the system (roll 4d6 keeping the best 3, reroll if your total modifiers don't add up to +1, etc.), or house-ruled in.

There's already enough luck that happens when characters play the game; there are few good reasons to introduce such luck in the character creation process. It reminds me of reading Knights of the Dinner Table, where some of the characters would literally spend hours rolling up characters until they got lucky with the dice rolls.

Slipperychicken
2013-06-19, 04:12 PM
For ACKS (the system uses 3d6 down the line), I rolled a guy with 18 Str, 18 Int, 6 Cha, all other stats around average, and maximum starting hit points. I nicknamed him Smartacus and made him a tactics expert.

Alejandro
2013-06-19, 04:38 PM
Or, why you should always use dice rolls

So I just rolled a new character and this is his attributes (not counting Lizardfolk bonuses)
16 STR
18 dex
13 con
15 wis
12 intelligence
11 cha

Adding and taking away lizard bonuses it's
18 STR
15 con
10 int
15 wis
18 DEX
11 CHA

In other words, rolling attributes is a risky buisness but CAN pay off
He's a ranger by the way, first level
So he can flatten anything that stands in his way.
Fun!

"Always" is a very dangerous word to use with statistics and probability.

Amazo
2013-06-19, 04:39 PM
For whatever reason every player I know in person that plays 4e has horrific attribute luck (in a game were you especially need good attributes) whereas 3.5e players I know have stupendous luck. Despite playing 3.5e frequently, having learned 4e before 3.5e apparently doomed me to the former group for luck. I always ask my DMs to roll my stats for me as a result. I witnessed the following set, in order.

18
16
16
17
18
17

I was floored. Even other people rolling with those dice can't produce results as reliably good as this group of 4 players can.

Slipperychicken
2013-06-19, 05:05 PM
"Always" is a very dangerous word to use with statistics and probability.

Yeah, it's important to remember that for every awesome roll you get, you're just as likely to get something horrible, unless your DM is enough of a pushover that you'll reroll every time you don't get an 18, or you're using some ridiculous ability generation like 8d6-best-4-reroll-1s.


Having watched enough players whine and cry about their rolled ability scores (usually enough to convince the DM to reroll them) whenever they're too high or low has made me favor point buy.

Lord Torath
2013-06-19, 05:09 PM
Using a 4d6 keep best 3 I rolled:

18
17
16
15
14
12

Right in front of my DM. Sometimes those dice love me! (On the other hand, I almost always lose the roll-offs to determine who gets to choose their deployment zone and who gets first turn for wargaming)

Using 4d4 +4 I got:
19
19
19
18
20
15
(This is for 2nd Edition AD&D Darksun, where PC's roll 4d4+4 for attributes, and NPCs roll 5d4)

Kazemi
2013-06-19, 05:17 PM
Playing Tomb of Horrors and I rolled
7 STR
9 DEX
11 CON
6 INT
8 WIS
6 CHA

Bad luck is still a type of luck, right?

A friend of mine suggested allowing players to roll 4 d6 and add the highest 3 together. They can either take the sum of those numbers or 18 minus that sum. This prevents needless rerolls and helps keep everyone's stats relatively high.

The Savage Worlds ruleset has stat choice determined by drawing cards. Very similar idea, although there are only two jokers to get "18s" with.

Personally, I prefer to give players the Non-Elite Array and allow them to have 6 stat boosts (as if you hit level 4 six times) to use as they please. It provides some customization while preventing that kid in the corner from having no physical or mental prowess.

Alejandro
2013-06-19, 06:46 PM
Yeah, it's important to remember that for every awesome roll you get, you're just as likely to get something horrible

Yep. Given 3d6, you are just as likely to get a 3 as an 18. But nobody ever thinks about it that way. :)

Jay R
2013-06-19, 07:52 PM
Yep. Given 3d6, you are just as likely to get a 3 as an 18. But nobody ever thinks about it that way. :)

I do. I let my players keep either the tops, or the bottoms, of all their dice.

So if the character is bad, subtract each roll from 21 and use that instead.

3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 becomes 18, 16, 15, 13, 11, 10.

D_Lord
2013-06-19, 07:52 PM
I got all 18 one time, after about 30 min of rolling. The DM let us reroll until happy with it.

TuggyNE
2013-06-19, 08:39 PM
Yep. Given 3d6, you are just as likely to get a 3 as an 18. But nobody ever thinks about it that way. :)

Yeah…


I do. I let my players keep either the tops, or the bottoms, of all their dice.

So if the character is bad, subtract each roll from 21 and use that instead.

3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 becomes 18, 16, 15, 13, 11, 10.

This, and sundry other systems, indicate what almost always results from rolling: stacking the dice wildly in favor of higher rolls with baroque obfuscation so you don't realize just how far from randomness you've come.

Because actually playing, say, the first set of 3d6-in-order you get (no rerolls, no fudging, no subtraction, no whining) is horrible! Even Gygax recommended various systems for making this more palatable.

KillianHawkeye
2013-06-19, 10:24 PM
I got all 18 one time, after about 30 min of rolling. The DM let us reroll until happy with it.

If there are no limits to the amount you can reroll, why bother wasting the time and just write down all 18s on your sheet? :smallconfused:

Forrestfire
2013-06-19, 11:15 PM
I prefer point buy, since it's more fun to make the choice to dump a stat, but one time, years back, my dad ran a D&D game for me, some friends, and my siblings.

My older sister rolled up a character with all 18s on 4d6 drop lowest. On the first try.

I still haven't seen something like that replicated :smalleek:

D_Lord
2013-06-19, 11:16 PM
If there are no limits to the amount you can reroll, why bother wasting the time and just write down all 18s on your sheet? :smallconfused:

For fun what else

TuggyNE
2013-06-20, 12:33 AM
For fun what else

:smalleek:

VeliciaL
2013-06-20, 12:41 AM
For fun what else

I.... think we may have different definitions of fun. :smalleek:

Narren
2013-06-20, 01:13 AM
My group has always done 4d6 drop the lowest. I'd allow two rerolls, but you're stuck with whatever you get. My group doesn't exactly power game or optimize, so it's never been a problem. The highest over all we've seen was all 16's across the board. He decided that would be a fine time to play a monk.

Crasical
2013-06-20, 01:22 AM
*randomly tosses some dice*

From the top down,

17
16
13
13
12
11

Yaaaaay

SiuiS
2013-06-20, 01:23 AM
For ACKS (the system uses 3d6 down the line), I rolled a guy with 18 Str, 18 Int, 6 Cha, all other stats around average, and maximum starting hit points. I nicknamed him Smartacus and made him a tactics expert.

ACKS is fun. It breaks your conditioning, because after a while of staring at the numbers you realize a 9 is a decent attribute!


For whatever reason every player I know in person that plays 4e has horrific attribute luck (in a game were you especially need good attributes) whereas 3.5e players I know have stupendous luck. Despite playing 3.5e frequently, having learned 4e before 3.5e apparently doomed me to the former group for luck. I always ask my DMs to roll my stats for me as a result. I witnessed the following set, in order.

18
16
16
17
18
17

I was floored. Even other people rolling with those dice can't produce results as reliably good as this group of 4 players can.

That is actually my group's standard array, now. I always roll consistently about this set, only we roll seven and keep the best six. I replaced a 16 with a 13, so there was something resembling a weakness. I now prefer point buy or given arrays.

My luckiest roll for attributes, using 4d6k3, was a 20. One of the dice kept coming up cocked, with two faces equally showing. It happened often enough that the DM said keep it, and along with the two 6s already on the table, it worked out great!

Never actually played that character. Kinda bummed.
And I've never, ever been able to roll a paladin or bard in 1e. Ever. Even using 9d6k3 for the prime requisites. >_<

Slipperychicken
2013-06-20, 01:47 AM
I.... think we may have different definitions of fun. :smalleek:

When I'm bored, I sometimes roll 3d6 as though generating ability scores.

TuggyNE
2013-06-20, 03:24 AM
When I'm bored, I sometimes roll 3d6 as though generating ability scores.

*runs away, screaming silently*

BootStrapTommy
2013-06-20, 03:41 AM
16 18 13 15 12 11? You're touting 16 18 13 15 12 11 as an accomplishment?

A friend of mine once rolled straight 18's. With four people watching. The final roll was preceded by held breath and followed by cheering.

SiuiS
2013-06-20, 07:20 AM
When I'm bored, I sometimes roll 3d6 as though generating ability scores.

Yeah. I make characters as a pass-time. Or just play with dice. My dice love me for it, too.


16 18 13 15 12 11? You're touting 16 18 13 15 12 11 as an accomplishment?

A friend of mine once rolled straight 18's. With four people watching. The final roll was preceded by held breath and followed by cheering.

Running a 4 minute mile doesn't make running the 5 minute mile less of an achievement, friend.

Soras Teva Gee
2013-06-20, 07:39 AM
You can quote probablities and statistics all you want I know I've never seen reality match those notions.

I find my own chance more extreme, a low percent chance doesn't happen and a high percent chance always happens. I'll roll decent stats, hit a better then average chance 9 out 10 times, but hit criticals more like 1 in 40 times.

Also for rolling stats, I find most D/GMs allow will let you have at least functional stats but not just reroll until you get 18.

SethoMarkus
2013-06-20, 07:51 AM
I always use rolled stats. I like the randomness of it. Granted, we generally use 4d6 best 3, 6 times, and distribute those 6 numbers into any stat we choose (opposed to going down the line).

But, we don't really go for high optimization in games, anyway. I just always look at it with the viewpoint of the general populace having stats between 5 and 14, 9-10 being an average ability score. This makes an 8 or 9 in a stat seem less detrimental, and a 16 or higher seem phenomenal.

BootStrapTommy
2013-06-20, 11:43 AM
We generally roll 4d6 toss the lowest. But we allow rerolls on 1s. It allows for moderately powerful campaigns.

Terazul
2013-06-20, 12:01 PM
This, and sundry other systems, indicate what almost always results from rolling: stacking the dice wildly in favor of higher rolls with baroque obfuscation so you don't realize just how far from randomness you've come.


...Yeaaah. Usually when a thread about rolling for stats comes up, theres numerous examples of "5d6 best three, reroll 1s, 7 times drop the lowest, take the inverse if you want twice" etc, etc, in order to nearly eliminate the chance of low arrays while still having the "chance" aspect. I think people just like rolling dice but don't want low results most of the time.
To which I say just use point buy in the first place.

SiuiS
2013-06-20, 12:21 PM
We generally roll 4d6 toss the lowest. But we allow rerolls on 1s. It allows for moderately powerful campaigns.

I did some quick math, back in the day (like, a year or two ago... Maybe three. Wow, lifer than I thought!) and found out that the average abilities were so high that we had the exact same game balance just divvying 76 points into six attributes (minimum 3 each) and just stick up to +4 LA onto it.

We had a... Lets see... Winged phrenic human monk/fighter, a draconic fey touched chaosite lillend bard, a phrenic amberite human monk/fighter/psychic warrior, and a spellwarped [something] elf dusk blade (and eventually a draconic half dragon barbarian/dragon samurai), and the game was just as easy and balanced as if we had rolled 4d6k3x7 reroll 1s, plus much less shenanigans to get the kewl powarz we wanted.


...Yeaaah. Usually when a thread about rolling for stats comes up, theres numerous examples of "5d6 best three, reroll 1s, 7 times drop the lowest, take the inverse if you want twice" etc, etc, in order to nearly eliminate the chance of low arrays while still having the "chance" aspect. I think people just like rolling dice but don't want low results most of the time.
To which I say just use point buy in the first place.

But you said it yourself. Point but doesn't have dice rolling!

Jay R
2013-06-20, 12:34 PM
This, and sundry other systems, indicate what almost always results from rolling: stacking the dice wildly in favor of higher rolls with baroque obfuscation so you don't realize just how far from randomness you've come.

It doesn't stack them as much as you think. The average roll under this system is 11.465, rather than 10.5. I just rolled up the following: 13, 11, 7, 11, 17, 11. It's a slightly above average roll. (A total of 70, when the average is 68.79.)

In my OD&D games, I also let them read the dice up or down, in a defined order. So the available characters are:

STR: 13, INT: 11, WIS: 7, CON: 11, DEX: 17, CHA: 11
A playable unwise thief.

STR: 8, INT: 10, WIS: 14, CON: 10, DEX: 4, CHA: 10
Below average, but a playable clumsy cleric.

STR: 11, INT: 17, WIS: 11, CON: 7, DEX: 11, CHA: 13
A slightly fragile but playable wizard.

STR: 10, INT: 4, WIS: 10, CON: 14, DEX: 10, CHA: 8
Below average and probably unusable. He'd be a playable but unimpressive fighter.

So three possibilities out of four of a reasonably playable character.


Because actually playing, say, the first set of 3d6-in-order you get (no rerolls, no fudging, no subtraction, no whining) is horrible! Even Gygax recommended various systems for making this more palatable.

Not originally he didn't. In original D&D, it was 3d6, in order. That's quite a playable game, and I've played several successful characters. The challenge is that you develop more slowly, and of course you have to lean on your own clever game-playing abilities, rather than character skills. Many encounters you avoid. But that was also assumed in the games. There were traps the players had to figure out themselves, etc.

Note that in the above example, playing the dice as they rolled is a perfectly good Thief.

Very few people enjoyed playing that way, and so they moved to more powerful characters, and eventually to CR ratings, WBL, and the like, in order to expand to a much larger customer base. But there is a very wide difference between saying that very few people enjoy it and saying it's not palatable.

Killer Angel
2013-06-20, 12:50 PM
with 4d6, drop the lower, a friend of mine rolled:

18
18
18
17
14
12

yeah...

John Campbell
2013-06-20, 12:54 PM
My first ever D&D character was rolled with 3d6 six times in order. I got an 18 Strength.

We later converted to AD&D, and since I was a Fighter with an 18 Str, I rolled d% for exceptional Str, and got 00.

The rest of that character's stats were decent but unexceptional, though.


I had a fighter/mage in AD&D with 18/36, 17, 16, 16, 15, 13, rolled on 4d6k3.

DiscipleofBob
2013-06-20, 12:54 PM
We were about to do a 4e game in Eberron, and I argued for point buy but the DM and the rest of the players insisted on rolling. I argued that it wasn't fair for one person to roll really well but for someone else to get crap stats.

I ended up legit rolling five 18's and a 16. I started pointing at my stats going "See?! SEE?!" I stood by my opinion that it wasn't fair to other players, but no one else saw anything wrong with my playing a character with a 20 in his primary stat and 18's in the rest.

SowZ
2013-06-20, 10:39 PM
Once got 13, 18, 16, 11, 17, 15. 4d6 drop lowest. That was pretty kickin.

VeliciaL
2013-06-20, 10:56 PM
Now that I think about it, rolling random stats and figuring out a character from it could be a fun exercise (no, I didn't just Google this word to get the spelling right, shut up). Not sure I'd ever play that way...

TuggyNE
2013-06-20, 11:16 PM
You can quote probablities and statistics all you want I know I've never seen reality match those notions.

The curse of — bah, I just realized he got banned a while back :smallfrown: — That One Anti-Math Guy strikes again!

Record all rolls for ten sessions and indicate unexpected means or standard deviations or something, then show that it wasn't due to inconsistent rolling technique or shoddy dice, and maybe I'll consider it. :smalltongue:


Not originally he didn't. In original D&D, it was 3d6, in order. That's quite a playable game, and I've played several successful characters. The challenge is that you develop more slowly, and of course you have to lean on your own clever game-playing abilities, rather than character skills. Many encounters you avoid. But that was also assumed in the games. There were traps the players had to figure out themselves, etc.

Note that in the above example, playing the dice as they rolled is a perfectly good Thief.

Very few people enjoyed playing that way, and so they moved to more powerful characters, and eventually to CR ratings, WBL, and the like, in order to expand to a much larger customer base. But there is a very wide difference between saying that very few people enjoy it and saying it's not palatable.

So, very few people enjoyed it, and he realized it was a bad idea and recommended something else later?

You're really selling the concept hard here.

I am well aware that absolutely any ruleset and playstyle, no matter how odd or unpopular, has its diehard adherents. That doesn't say much for how good it is, because at a certain point, well, it's more about unusual tastes. The dark side of the long tail, if you will.

USS Sorceror
2013-06-20, 11:19 PM
For an NPC Changeling Rogue in my most recent campaign, I rolled:

STR 18
DEX 13
CON 18
INT 18
WIS 18
CHA 18

Unfortunately, the players got the jump on him and tied him down before he could do anything spectacular. Lesson learned: Spectacular abilities need to be backed up by spectacular items, feats, etc.

Slipperychicken
2013-06-21, 12:03 AM
Spectacular abilities need to be backed up by spectacular items, feats, etc.

Don't forget skill at playing. An Int/Wis 18 character played by a moron will, sadly, always act as though under the direction of a moron.

Tvtyrant
2013-06-21, 12:06 AM
I always get at least two 18s. I always roll in front of the DM too, so they know there is no cheating.

I have a 2 18 scores Druid right now (con and wisdom) and the same with a Bard (except it is int and cha.) One of the other players got a high roll of 15 and informed me that there are numbers below 15. :smalltongue:

Gamgee
2013-06-21, 03:27 AM
I had a player roll 18, 18, 18, 16, 17, and 15, and another 16 on a reroll since I allowed it.

Alex12
2013-06-21, 10:50 AM
We do 4d6 drop lowest. All rolls must be done in front of the DM or someone else in the group that the DM authorizes to act as witness.
If you roll below a 6, or 2 below 10, you can reroll the whole set once and pick which set you like better.

Jerthanis
2013-06-21, 01:44 PM
Every time my group ever has a choice between random stat generation and point-buy methods, every single person except one goes for point-buy.

Even if the random stat method is really forgiving like "4d6 reroll 1s, drop the lowest" and the point-buy is really restrictive or low, we almost always go with point-buy.

We just don't see any novelty in randomly inserting into our character concepts unwanted strengths and weaknesses... or 'getting lucky' and making a character with no weaknesses and many strengths... we want to write a character with the strengths and weaknesses we want to play, and which reflect the character in our minds that we want to play.

inuyasha
2013-06-21, 02:00 PM
Ive never played a game with point buy, that takes the random fun out of it. My DM always does 5d6 drop the 2 lowest, as our stats, and I almost always get an 18, sometimes even 2

SowZ
2013-06-21, 02:58 PM
Ive never played a game with point buy, that takes the random fun out of it. My DM always does 5d6 drop the 2 lowest, as our stats, and I almost always get an 18, sometimes even 2

Yeah, I believe it. That is a pretty forgiving way to roll stats.

Nymrod
2013-06-21, 03:01 PM
I once had a player roll 17 and 5 16s (4d6 drop lowest). Seriously! Ever since then, I've used point buy.

Myself I am horrid with rolling dice. I guess the best I ever felt with my rolls was back in AD&D rolling a 12 and a 15 on 3d6 so I could be a druid!

Amaril
2013-06-21, 03:04 PM
When I roll for my scores rather than using point buy, I typically use 4d6k3 three times, pick the set you like best. I'm wondering, do most people's DMs use systems more or less random than that? That's really the only system I've ever played with, and this thread has me curious :smallconfused:

I just started making a character (a Pathfinder sorcerer) for fun a minute ago, and rolling with that system, I got the following arrays:

10, 12, 10, 13, 13, 12

11, 13, 15, 14, 13, 6

11, 11, 14, 17, 10, 15

(Obviously I went with the last one--not that it matters, I'm just making this character while I take a break from studying for a physics exam).

Oko and Qailee
2013-06-21, 03:08 PM
I like rolling bc all point buys always feel the same, and 18 in the most important stat, a 9 cha, etc. I understand rolling results in the same "best stat = best score" but it still has more variability.

What I do is: 4d6 drop the lowest, then I count the total mod for each player, ones who are way lower than the rest get to re-roll their lowest until total mods or more manageable.

Ex. In my most recent campaign my players had a +6, +9, +9, and +11 total mod each (they rolled really well, the average is supposed to be +6...), so I made the +6 player re-roll his lowest (which was a -1) and he ended up with a total mod of +9.

The party druid has the +11 though :/ it's a good thing she chose un armed strike as a feat though.

Flickerdart
2013-06-21, 03:10 PM
In Baldur's Gate, if you reroll 999 times, it will give you all 18s

Amaril
2013-06-21, 03:12 PM
In Baldur's Gate, if you reroll 999 times, it will give you all 18s

Wow, really? I should try that sometime, maybe that way I can finally finish the game :smalltongue:

Gitman00
2013-06-21, 03:19 PM
My first DM had us roll attributes, but used extremely generous rolling rules: Roll 4d6, reroll all 1's, keep the best 3, and you can reroll the 2's once. Roll all 6 stats, then you can choose which numbers to assign to which attributes.

He then proceeded to balance this generosity by giving us truly evil encounters.

Doug Lampert
2013-06-21, 03:50 PM
...Yeaaah. Usually when a thread about rolling for stats comes up, theres numerous examples of "5d6 best three, reroll 1s, 7 times drop the lowest, take the inverse if you want twice" etc, etc, in order to nearly eliminate the chance of low arrays while still having the "chance" aspect. I think people just like rolling dice but don't want low results most of the time.
To which I say just use point buy in the first place.

My opinion is they want really high attributes and are for some bizzare reason simply incapable of saying "96 point point-buy" or "56 points point-buy" or anything similar.

I've seen people COMPLAIN about how overpowered and munkin point buy is and then tout a system like 5d6k3 reroll 1s, which AVERAGES a 46.5 point buy. And then they'll admit the GM lets them reroll "bad" sets of dice.

Basically, rolling systems routinely give 50+ point buy values. But at least you rolled them rather than evily buying them or just arbitrarily assigning them.

I've also seen a 54 point buy character come out of roll 3d6 6 times in order. Something like two 18s, a 16, and nothing below average. If you're playing a game that uses 3d6 six times in order, good luck if someone ELSE in your group got those rolls and knows what he's doing while you got the far more common 9, 13, 7, 13, 11, 9 set of rolls.

Vultawk
2013-06-21, 05:56 PM
I like rolling ability scores. It can be fun, it gets you thinking, and you can always retire a useless character if you're not happy with the rolls.

That said, I've switched to using point-buy because I don't have to be present when the player's roll up their characters, and because there have been accusations of cheating between players in the past.

Logic
2013-06-21, 11:27 PM
I prefer point buy, since it's more fun to make the choice to dump a stat, but one time, years back, my dad ran a D&D game for me, some friends, and my siblings.

My older sister rolled up a character with all 18s on 4d6 drop lowest. On the first try.

I still haven't seen something like that replicated :smalleek:

The closest to that I have come was my first 3.0 character (a Paladin) with:
18 17 18 17 18 18.

DM was not amused. :smallamused::smallmad:

Jay R
2013-06-21, 11:34 PM
So, very few people enjoyed it, and he realized it was a bad idea and recommended something else later?

No, not at all. Most hard-core gamers who were fantasy readers liked it, which was exactly the target audience. Because it was so popular, it grew faster than any other war game of the time, and pretty soon was being bought by people who weren't both deeply into studying battle tactics and voracious readers of fantasy. So it was re-written to the tastes of the new audience.

angry_bear
2013-06-22, 12:06 AM
Rolling is fun, and can typically prevent vanilla stats. I remember rolling a character who's non physical stats weren't about a nine. His physical stats were good to great, and I had a good time running the character.

Typically how I roll stats are 4d6, take the 3 best, and place the dice where they land. So you could wind up with something horrendous, or great, or typically, about average.

Point buy is alright too though. I usually request point buy when I'm trying to optimize.

Soras Teva Gee
2013-06-22, 02:38 AM
My opinion is they want really high attributes and are for some bizzare reason simply incapable of saying "96 point point-buy" or "56 points point-buy" or anything similar.

I've seen people COMPLAIN about how overpowered and munkin point buy is and then tout a system like 5d6k3 reroll 1s, which AVERAGES a 46.5 point buy. And then they'll admit the GM lets them reroll "bad" sets of dice.


Its not that bizzare, there's a distinct difference between wanting a powerful character without a dumped stat and wanting a 100% guarantee of an exact build. The sort of planning and detail orientation that goes into one or the other mindset is different.

A stat array of everything 14-16 is pretty high in point value, but doesn't precisely lend itself to min-maxing. You can't well, max anything. Do you think there are people that would rather take a lower point buy value so they can say get that mystic 18 starting stat +2 racial? I think there's a fair number if that was an option. Depending on choices an absolute higher value in one place can go a lot farther then a superior average.

Given the whole dichotomy is a bit of a limited case but I don't find the seeing a difference and preferring one as all that odd.

Now they shouldn't be claiming to not be power gaming probably...

Killer Angel
2013-06-22, 04:07 AM
My older sister rolled up a character with all 18s on 4d6 drop lowest. On the first try.

I still haven't seen something like that replicated :smalleek:

:smalleek: This clearly wins.
you cannot beat it, at best you'll only obtain a tie...

Balain
2013-06-22, 04:08 AM
This topic mad me a little nostalgic for the old AD&D and basic D&D (I think) Where you rolled your stats, 3d6 in order, then you figured out what class/race you could make with that. We had many human fighters or wizards that could only learn up to about level 4 spells. Ah good times.

holywhippet
2013-06-24, 06:02 AM
My first DM had us roll attributes, but used extremely generous rolling rules: Roll 4d6, reroll all 1's, keep the best 3, and you can reroll the 2's once. Roll all 6 stats, then you can choose which numbers to assign to which attributes.

He then proceeded to balance this generosity by giving us truly evil encounters.

Well, that's pretty much what the DM's job is - hitting the party with challenges. Got a party with lots of ability scores at 18? Just toss a few extra monsters with each encounter. Or hit them with problems that those stats won't actually help with.

Also, even the best stats won't help if a) the character is a weak class b) unoptimized or c) played by someone with poor PC survival instincts.

Slipperychicken
2013-06-24, 09:04 AM
played by someone with poor PC survival instincts.

This is true. Only experience can help such a player.

Jerthanis
2013-06-24, 11:26 AM
Its not that bizzare, there's a distinct difference between wanting a powerful character without a dumped stat and wanting a 100% guarantee of an exact build. The sort of planning and detail orientation that goes into one or the other mindset is different.

A stat array of everything 14-16 is pretty high in point value, but doesn't precisely lend itself to min-maxing. You can't well, max anything. Do you think there are people that would rather take a lower point buy value so they can say get that mystic 18 starting stat +2 racial? I think there's a fair number if that was an option. Depending on choices an absolute higher value in one place can go a lot farther then a superior average.

Given the whole dichotomy is a bit of a limited case but I don't find the seeing a difference and preferring one as all that odd.

Now they shouldn't be claiming to not be power gaming probably...

Well, let me put it this way... I once played a bard in a Pathfinder game where we went with 4d6 drop the lowest method. I had wanted to be an archer bard, but I only rolled one stat above 12. I would either choose to be a spellcaster at all, or I could choose to qualify for Precise Shot and have a prayer of hitting anything in melee.

I think rolling might be fine in a system like AD&D or Basic, where higher or lower stats will make a character a little stronger or a little weaker, but in 3rd edition and its cousins, your stats literally allow or disallow access to options. It can often in this edition be the difference between an idea being possible or impossible will hinge on a single point.

So I think it's not precisely accurate to say that point-buy favors powergaming because it ensures you'll be able to min/max. I think you might be able to make the case that a player having control over which options are available to them is some degree of powergaming, but the structure of 3rd edition often structures these options with the idea that you're making a choice of investiture when it comes to higher stats in certain areas over others.

So it's this quality that I think makes point-buy more attractive to us... it seems to fit the game that 3rd edition IS better than rolling does. Meanwhile, rolling might suit AD&D better than a point-buy system would.

Doug Lampert
2013-06-24, 01:08 PM
Its not that bizzare, there's a distinct difference between wanting a powerful character without a dumped stat and wanting a 100% guarantee of an exact build. The sort of planning and detail orientation that goes into one or the other mindset is different.

A stat array of everything 14-16 is pretty high in point value, but doesn't precisely lend itself to min-maxing. You can't well, max anything. Do you think there are people that would rather take a lower point buy value so they can say get that mystic 18 starting stat +2 racial?

No. Because 5d6k3, reroll 1s, and reroll the entire array if it is "unacceptably" weak will ALWAYS give you an 18 rolled if you want one.

Yeah, the mathematical odds are that "only" a bit more than 30% of such characters will have one or more 18s (and less than 30% will "suffer" with the sort of array you mention where 16 or less is the high roll, yeap there are more characters with one or more 18s than there are characters with nothing that's an 17 or 18).

But did you notice the part about rerolling if the result is "too weak"? What exactly do you think is considered "too weak" by people who insist on a rolling method that comes up to 46.5 point buy on average? If they want an 18 then two or three characters get thrown out or jump off a bridge and they get their 18. Seriously, how many rolls do you expect this to take?

And we've had people in this thread mention rerolling 2s as well as 1s. Because heaven help us if we have to put up with an actual low score somewhere in order to keep our 18 Int and 17 Con or whatever came up.

Seriously, if you're using a method like this, try just choosing attributes, tell people to pick numbers they want to play with.

Slipperychicken
2013-06-25, 10:42 PM
Seriously, if you're using a method like this, try just choosing attributes, tell people to pick numbers they want to play with.

Ehh. They want the illusion that their special-snowflake character rose up from the cruel world of rolled stats, fine. Whatever works for them.

Doug Lampert
2013-06-26, 10:54 AM
Ehh. They want the illusion that their special-snowflake character rose up from the cruel world of rolled stats, fine. Whatever works for them.

You can have fun with a bad system, and more fun with a good system. If you've never really tried a good system you may THINK the bad system is what's fun (especially if the alternatives you've seen are all much worse than the bad system).

So I ask, do they actually value that illusion? Or do they just want non-gimped interesting characters and the "barely above average for 3d6 six times" point buys that the 3.x DMGs insists are powerful convince them that non-rolled systems won't let them have that.

Trying "Pick abilities" once lets you learn what you actually enjoy and it gives the GM an idea what power level the group likes (especially if you discuss the results afterward). Then you can come up with a system that actually does what you want. If people have one or two weak abilities, you can actually do that (5d6k3 is unlikely to give any). If people actually want all 18s them maybe you should be playing some system where the PCs are actually god-like or at least super-heroes from the start.

I have trouble believing that people actually value that illusion all that much in 3.x, it's too threadbear given how many important parts of the character aren't rolled. I think claiming to value that illusion is simply a fig leaf for liking powerful characters and not realizing that you can just agree, "we're playing powerful characters here, pick weaknesses and strengths you think fit the character".

AttilaTheGeek
2013-06-26, 04:17 PM
The most interesting stat generation method I've ever seen on these forums gives each player one of three options.

First, you can take a point buy. You get 28 point buy with the 3.5 method, or 22 point buy with the Pathfinder method. Overall the weakest, but you can optimize to get exactly the stats you want. You know you can get that 18 if you want it.

Second, you can take your choice of two sets of 4d6b3 and arrange them in whatever order you like. It's a bit more powerful overall, and you are likely to get an 18, but you're not sure of how strong the stats will be.

Third, 3d12b2, six times, in order, no rerolls. Mathematically speaking, it's incredibly powerful, but you have no control over what you'll get.

Sutremaine
2013-06-26, 05:05 PM
Is it? Damn, now I have to try it:

...or, not, as copy-pasting a bunch of 3d12b2 inside a spoiler just gets me a spoiler with bbcode in it. :/

Does it only work on certain sub-forums?

AttilaTheGeek
2013-06-26, 05:59 PM
Is it? Damn, now I have to try it:

...or, not, as copy-pasting a bunch of 3d12b2 inside a spoiler just gets me a spoiler with bbcode in it. :/

Does it only work on certain sub-forums?

I believe it does. Also, you can't edit in rolls.

Sutremaine
2013-06-26, 06:30 PM
The original, unedited post had the proper tags, so I guess it must be the subforum...

Yup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15507824&postcount=149).

AttilaTheGeek
2013-06-27, 03:55 PM
The original, unedited post had the proper tags, so I guess it must be the subforum...

Yup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15507824&postcount=149).

So, as you can see, picking 3d12b2 means that you'll probably do well at whatever role you choose, but you might have to play something else, which is a problem you'll never run into with point buy. And giving players the 4d6b3 option gives them a compromise between the two.

jedipilot24
2013-06-27, 05:48 PM
My DM once allowed us to roll 4d6 and reroll 1s and 2s. Needless to say, our stats were all well above average.