Roll 5d4 drop lowest

[Triclinium]

The fact that rolling stats allows higher possible scores than point buy annoys me. Especially since stats are mostly capped at 20, and good rolls and race selection allow you to reach that cap at level 1. My proposed solution is to roll 5d4 and drop the lowest roll. It averages out around the same but has a more limited range, between 4 and 16.

Can anyone anticipate any problems with this?

[Ghost Nappa]

The fact that rolling stats allows higher possible scores than point buy annoys me. Especially since stats are mostly capped at 20, and good rolls and race selection allow you to reach that cap at level 1. My proposed solution is to roll 5d4 and drop the lowest roll. It averages out around the same but has a more limited range, between 4 and 16.

Can anyone anticipate any problems with this?

The average might be slightly lower E(d4) = 2.5 * 4 = 10

E(d6) = 3.5 * 3 = 11.5

By narrowing the spread, you reduce the odds of sucky rolls penalizing players but it can feel really good as a player to get outstanding stats from Level 1.

I don't foresee any practical problems, but keep in mind that players will be generally lower all across the board. You might as well do Point-buy.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It does create a nice flat bell curve. Expected ability scores would be 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8.5, which are just a little lower than the standard array.

http://anydice.com/program/4d64

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

If instead you do 6d4 drop 2, the expected array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9.5; just a little higher than standard array and still having a nice flat curve.

http://anydice.com/program/4d65

[Giant2005]

By rolling that way, you are essentially giving the players the negative aspects of all of the various ability distribution methods without giving them any of the positives.
They are losing the ability to customize their abilities like you would get from the Point Buy (With your rolling method, it is unlikely that any stat will be above 12 before race modifiers) while also losing the ability to have abilities above 16.
It is most definitely weakening the players beyond the expectations that the game was balanced around but if your players are okay with that and enjoy a challenge, there shouldn't be any issues.

[JFahy]

The average might be slightly lower E(d4) = 2.5 * 4 = 10

E(d6) = 3.5 * 3 = 11.5

By narrowing the spread, you reduce the odds of sucky rolls penalizing players but it can feel really good as a player to get outstanding stats from Level 1.

I don't foresee any practical problems, but keep in mind that players will be generally lower all across the board. You might as well do Point-buy.

Closer than that. 3.5 x 3 is 10.5. :smallsmile:

[FaerieGodfather]

Personally, I'm a fan of having characters point-buy (or standard array) and then roll 5d4 (keep all) in order and using the better score.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Personally, I'm a fan of having characters point-buy (or standard array) and then roll 5d4 (keep all) in order and using the better score.

With that I'd always take 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 (or close to it depending on what race I wanted). Guarantees the stats I need high are high, and the odds of getting free stats is higher the lower I set everything else.

[Tvtyrant]

I have used 5d4 keep all before. I feel like it provides a much more realistic curve for characters, since it theoretically allows for 20s at start but makes is extremely unlikely.

[Knaight]

They are losing the ability to customize their abilities like you would get from the Point Buy (With your rolling method, it is unlikely that any stat will be above 12 before race modifiers) while also losing the ability to have abilities above 16.

There is a 30.37% chance of any given roll being 13 or higher, which is a 69.63% chance of any given roll being 12 or lower. All 6 being 12 or lower is only an 11.40% chance, providing an 88.60% chance that at least one stat will be above 12. That is not highly unlikely.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Each ability score starts at 7

Roll 1d8 (Avg. 4.5) for each ability score.

Average ability score should come out to be around 12

Sweet n simple, you could even allow them to rolls 7d8 drop lowest if you are feeling nice. Arrange as you will.

[Yagyujubei]

With that I'd always take 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 (or close to it depending on what race I wanted). Guarantees the stats I need high are high, and the odds of getting free stats is higher the lower I set everything else.

ugh, i really dislike when ppl min/max like this, if I were DMing I would limit how you can RP dependent upon which stats you chose as 8's.

you have an int of 8? you better not come up with any particularly clever battle strategies or solve any difficult puzzles just because you can OoC, because IN character you're of below average intelligence.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

ugh, i really dislike when ppl min/max like this, if I were DMing I would limit how you can RP dependent upon which stats you chose as 8's.

you have an int of 8? you better not come up with any particularly clever battle strategies or solve any difficult puzzles just because you can OoC, because IN character you're of below average intelligence.


Yes because as the DM the game is all about you. :smallannoyed:

Average intelligence is a 10 or so, having an 8 doesn't set you into "I'm a complete idiot". You can still have bursts of insight.

Perfect example, Fighter from 8 bit theater. Stupid as holy hell but has burst of insight from time to time that are really game changing.

[Yagyujubei]

Yes because as the DM the game is all about you. :smallannoyed:

Average intelligence is a 10 or so, having an 8 doesn't set you into "I'm a complete idiot". You can still have bursts of insight.

Perfect example, Fighter from 8 bit theater. Stupid as holy hell but has burst of insight from time to time that are really game changing.

has nothing to do with being about the DM or not, if you're gonna dump THREE of your stats so you can be amazing in combat, then you're gonna be subpar at everything else.

people who think only mechanically and say things like "oh you dont need INT because it's an uncommon save, so i'll just dump it" and then spend all day strategizing whenever a problem arrives are straight up breaking character.

[Solaris]

has nothing to do with being about the DM or not, if you're gonna dump THREE of your stats so you can be amazing in combat, then you're gonna be subpar at everything else.

people who think only mechanically and say things like "oh you dont need INT because it's an uncommon save, so i'll just dump it" and then spend all day strategizing whenever a problem arrives are straight up breaking character.

You missed the point. He said he would arrange it that way with a particular system wherein you get the better of a roll and a point buy for an ability, thereby ensuring he gets at least a good score in his important abilities. That's not munchkinery, that's just good sense.

You're also overestimating the impact of a -1 penalty on an ability score. Someone with an 8 Intelligence scores Ds and Cs on their tests, as opposed to the more average Cs. If you penalize the player for a basic and small measure of optimization, don't be surprised if he decides he wants to play with another group.

[Yagyujubei]

You missed the point. He said he would arrange it that way with a particular system wherein you get the better of a roll and a point buy for an ability, thereby ensuring he gets at least a good score in his important abilities. That's not munchkinery, that's just good sense.

You're also overestimating the impact of a -1 penalty on an ability score. Someone with an 8 Intelligence scores Ds and Cs on their tests, as opposed to the more average Cs. If you penalize the player for a basic and small measure of optimization, don't be surprised if he decides he wants to play with another group.

first of all, dumping 3 stats to max your important ones is huge measure of optimization don't kid yourself, I was just using INT as an example to the kinda of limitations I believe should be imposed when someone min maxes

in that regard, your saying that a player with 8 STR should be able to pick up heavy objects or bust through locked doors? this is no different. I just don't allow people to take advantage of the fact that certain scores don't have an effect of the tangible mechanics of a game, because that's only part of what makes a DnD game.

[bloodshed343]

first of all, dumping 3 stats to max your important ones is huge measure of optimization don't kid yourself, I was just using INT as an example to the kinda of limitations I believe should be imposed when someone min maxes

in that regard, your saying that a player with 8 STR should be able to pick up heavy objects or bust through locked doors? this is no different. I just don't allow people to take advantage of the fact that certain scores don't have an effect of the tangible mechanics of a game, because that's only part of what makes a DnD game.

Stormwind Fallacy. A character with 8 strength can't lift as much as a character with 20. This is reflected in the rules by their differing modifiers in strength checks.

A person with 8 int is similarly less capable as reflected in their differing modifiers in intelligence checks.

Min/maxing does not make a person a worse roleplayer. You shouldn't punish a character for min/maxing. That's no fun for anyone. Saying that a character with 8 int can't solve puzzles because it's not "in-character" is saying that you know more about the characters than the characters themselves. You're also promoting flat, one-dimensional characters that never develop. By punishing a player for being clever with a low-int character, you're saying that your fun is more important than their fun, because you're the dm. You're basically just power tripping. I think it's important for you to know that dms are replaceable, too, and you can't play either if you have no players.

Instead of saying "no, you can't" when someone does something that is out of character, you should say "yes, and...". The out of character should be explained in a way such that it fits the character. That's what gives a character depth. That's how they evolve. If your dumb fighter hasn't learned something after 20 levels of adventuring with a wizard and a cleric, you're doing something wrong.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

first of all, dumping 3 stats to max your important ones is huge measure of optimization don't kid yourself, I was just using INT as an example to the kinda of limitations I believe should be imposed when someone min maxes

in that regard, your saying that a player with 8 STR should be able to pick up heavy objects or bust through locked doors? this is no different. I just don't allow people to take advantage of the fact that certain scores don't have an effect of the tangible mechanics of a game, because that's only part of what makes a DnD game.


You can certainly bust through a door, might take you a couple tries or you need a portable ram but you can do it. Just like an 8 Int person can come up with smart ideas.

You make it seem like they have 3 or 4 Int which is about basic animal intelligence.

The difference between an 8 and a 20 is not what you can do in 5e, just how consistent you are at doing it.

Training helps with this consistency but you don't NEED a certain number of Int or training to try to perform something.

DMs who severly punish a player for this sort of stuff need to get over themselves.

[Yagyujubei]

Stormwind Fallacy.

actually no, im not saying that you can't rollplay effectively with three 8's. you can absolutely do that, but it should be appropriate to how you built your character.

if you dumped INT/WIS/CHA don't go around like you're the party face and try to get into every conversation, because someone with low scores in those abilities is likely of modest intelligence, fairly gullible, and somewhat lacking in social skills.

sure you can try, but you better not be expecting amazing results. I play heavy rollplay in my games so these things are important. it isn't punishing people, but if you (as a player) want to employ complex strategies on a regular basis like a master warlord, then you better not dump both INT and WIS, because then you are metagaming. that's not to say you cant have input, or good insights now and then. you just should lay down master plans from A to Z out of nowhere.

if you don't think that's a reasonable expectation for a DM to have of his players then we'll just never see eye to eye and that's ok.

[Pex]

Stormwind Fallacy. A character with 8 strength can't lift as much as a character with 20. This is reflected in the rules by their differing modifiers in strength checks.

A person with 8 int is similarly less capable as reflected in their differing modifiers in intelligence checks.

Min/maxing does not make a person a worse roleplayer. You shouldn't punish a character for min/maxing. That's no fun for anyone. Saying that a character with 8 int can't solve puzzles because it's not "in-character" is saying that you know more about the characters than the characters themselves. You're also promoting flat, one-dimensional characters that never develop. By punishing a player for being clever with a low-int character, you're saying that your fun is more important than their fun, because you're the dm. You're basically just power tripping. I think it's important for you to know that dms are replaceable, too, and you can't play either if you have no players.

Instead of saying "no, you can't" when someone does something that is out of character, you should say "yes, and...". The out of character should be explained in a way such that it fits the character. That's what gives a character depth. That's how they evolve. If your dumb fighter hasn't learned something after 20 levels of adventuring with a wizard and a cleric, you're doing something wrong.

My Pathfinder group alternates campaigns. In one I'm playing an 8 IN Human Oracle, in another an 8 IN Paladin, born Human, became Aasimar due to campaign plot, both have favored class bonus to hit points. Because the Oracle still gets 4 skill points per level the 8 doesn't mean much. I don't have him come up with clever plans, but he can work with the party to improve those others have come up with. He contributes to strategizing. The Paladin, on the other hand, is dumber than a sack of potatoes. He only got 2 skill points per level. Now he only gets 1 because he's no longer human. However, when he became an Aasimar he lost all human traits, including the extra skill points. Instead of taking them away for ease of bookkeeping, I get 1 less skill point for the next 8 levels since I was 8 levels a human. That means I get no skill points at all for leveling. He does have average 10 Wisdom so he's not gullible, but knowing things and planning are out of the question. Every once in a while I purposely contribute a dumb idea. However, when it comes to combat the 8 might as well be 18. Combat is what he's trained for. He knows what to do and how to do it. It is also kind of meta in that I'm not going to allow my roleplaying fun of the stereotypical dumb jock to contribute to suffering or death of a party member. That would be a real life stupid thing to do.

[Yagyujubei]

Stormwind Fallacy. A character with 8 strength can't lift as much as a character with 20. This is reflected in the rules by their differing modifiers in strength checks.

A person with 8 int is similarly less capable as reflected in their differing modifiers in intelligence checks.

Min/maxing does not make a person a worse roleplayer. You shouldn't punish a character for min/maxing. That's no fun for anyone. Saying that a character with 8 int can't solve puzzles because it's not "in-character" is saying that you know more about the characters than the characters themselves. You're also promoting flat, one-dimensional characters that never develop. By punishing a player for being clever with a low-int character, you're saying that your fun is more important than their fun, because you're the dm. You're basically just power tripping. I think it's important for you to know that dms are replaceable, too, and you can't play either if you have no players.

Instead of saying "no, you can't" when someone does something that is out of character, you should say "yes, and...". The out of character should be explained in a way such that it fits the character. That's what gives a character depth. That's how they evolve. If your dumb fighter hasn't learned something after 20 levels of adventuring with a wizard and a cleric, you're doing something wrong.

you can increase your post all you want, but it still isn't this stormwind fallacy business. And it isn't a power trip at all, it's how my games are played, and the expectation is plainly stated before characters are even rolled.

oddly enough there are plenty of people who; like me, like to play games in which characters personalities and rollplay actually reflect their character build.

I admit my first post was an extreme example and I wouldn't actually do that unless INT was like...below speaking intelligence, but I still expect my players to tie everything together in a way that makes sense.

EDIT: @ Pax your updated post is exactly what im talking about (like i said my first post was poorly done). with below avg INT you can still make good points in party conversation, but you arent hacking the CIA database or solving the mysteries of the universe like a person with 20 INT might have a chance at doing.

plus INT is by far the most grey in terms of RP correlation, with WIS following a bit behind it so they're always a point of contention, which is why I lay out my expectations right off the bat.

[Ghost Nappa]

if you dumped INT/WIS/CHA don't go around like you're the party face and try to get into every conversation, because someone with low scores in those abilities is likely of modest intelligence, fairly gullible, and somewhat lacking in social skills.

sure you can try, but you better not be expecting amazing results. I play heavy rollplay in my games so these things are important. it isn't punishing people, but if you (as a player) want to employ complex strategies on a regular basis like a master warlord, then you better not dump both INT and WIS, because then you are metagaming. that's not to say you cant have input, or good insights now and then. you just should lay down master plans from A to Z out of nowhere.

if you don't think that's a reasonable expectation for a DM to have of his players then we'll just never see eye to eye and that's ok.

@Bolded Section: Why not? What if that person is playing a character who thinks they're the be-all-and-end-all but then turns out to be horrifyingly almost supernaturally unlikable? Their ego puts them into situations that they won't succeed in because they have an unrealistic expectation of their abilities.

For some people, dumping INT means that their character is literally as intelligent as the rock next to them.
For others, that exact same score just means your memory and mental acuity are only situation-ally helpful. Elan may be as dumb as a box of moldy carrots, but he still knows how to ride a horse, play a lute, and wield a sword.


For some people dumping CHA means that their character is shy, dependent, or quiet. They only follow and are incapable of thriving without someone to give them guidance.
For others, it means the common way that they converse with others is so grossly over complicated than even beginning to understand the sufficiently tedious string of words that currently bombard your sense of seeing would require decades more education at an institution of unnecessarily expensive taste and an exorbitantly longer amount of time invested in the studies that they are willing to provide at said institution.


There's no reason why a character with low INT or WIS can't spend years coming up with billions of plans. They should just be incompetent at it: it takes a lot longer, the results aren't consistent, or they are largely ineffective.

@OP: I don't approve of the 5d4 method, but I also can't run your table. If I were a player I would probably try to persuade you to use a different method for stat creation.

[Yagyujubei]

@Ghost nappa you must have missed the next sentence. I said a player was willing to try to be the pt face like that, but it wasn't gonna go how they wanted, which would be hilarious and is actually something I love in my games.

just don't expect to be suave like george clooney. and if your int is kinda low, sure you can be about average; even well versed in one area, but don't expect to roll into my game with 8 INT and be the Sun Tzu of encounters or the Einstein of puzzle solving.

[JBPuffin]

@Ghost nappa you must have missed the next sentence. I said a player was willing to try to be the pt face like that, but it wasn't gonna go how they wanted, which would be hilarious and is actually something I love in my games.

just don't expect to be suave like george clooney. and if your int is kinda low, sure you can be about average; even well versed in one area, but don't expect to roll into my game with 8 INT and be the Sun Tzu of encounters or the Einstein of puzzle solving.

I get what you're saying here: 15,15,15,8,8,8 just to be sure your stats are good is kind of bs. What I think the guy who suggested both array and 5d4 is actually saying "whichever ARRAY" is best, which reduces the problem of the optimization.

Now, as for the three 8s? He's chosen to have a character who has problems with half of life, whatever three scores he ends up setting at that level. No one is expecting him to be Superman - but he's got a chance on the dice, an artefact which some games actually USE, 5e included.

[GiantOctopodes]

Thought about 4d4 drop lowest + 4? Gives a lowest possible score of 7 (only slightly lower than point buy), a max of 16 (same as point buy), and though it has a bit higher average than standard rolling methods (12.62 average vs 12.24) it's not so extreme of a difference as to be tremendously impactful, not to mention telling people it has a higher average (even if it's less than .4 higher, you don't have to mention that) likely will make it more palatable for them and easier to accept.

[Anderlith]

My autistic brother is a genius when it comes to micromanagement & he knows a ton of information about any topic you care to mention. He's a walking encyclopedia. That being said, he sucks with logic puzzles & critical thinking. I would still say he has a 16 intelligence because there are many kinds of intelligence. My cousin who was in remedial classes yet completely understands all the complicated bits needed to underwater weld. There is a funny saying about how stoners suddenly become engineers when they need to make something a bong. This is no different. Intelligence is more than book learning or logic puzzles or skill. I once played a wizard with 20 Int who was dumb as rocks if it wasn't magic related. So yeah strategize as much as you want because int/wis/cha all have real game effects just like the physical stats. If you read Dragonlance take Caramon as the poster boy for negative int yet not dumb. Heck look at Forest Gump

[Pilo]

Why not 3d4+4 so range goes from 7 to 16?

[FaerieGodfather]

I get what you're saying here: 15,15,15,8,8,8 just to be sure your stats are good is kind of bs. What I think the guy who suggested both array and 5d4 is actually saying "whichever ARRAY" is best, which reduces the problem of the optimization.

No, I meant whichever result is best for each individual score. I may have to revise this rule to force standard array if people start abusing it like this, but so far no-one has. The idea is to have some control over the kind of character you want to play, while still having a bit of the "organic" feel of rolling stats and getting surprises.

I may just change it so that putting zero points into a score isn't an 8, it's saying you'll take whatever the dice hand you. More motivation to put points into having nines or tens, even if the average result is a 13.

[HugeC]

If instead you do 6d4 drop 2, the expected array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9.5; just a little higher than standard array and still having a nice flat curve.

http://anydice.com/program/4d65

Your anydice-fu is amazing! That is all.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Your anydice-fu is amazing! That is all.

I just copied the functions from this blog (http://catlikecoding.com/blog/post:4d6_drop_lowest) and then modified them to suit the problem at hand. :smalltongue:

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

ugh, i really dislike when ppl min/max like this, if I were DMing I would limit how you can RP dependent upon which stats you chose as 8's.

you have an int of 8? you better not come up with any particularly clever battle strategies or solve any difficult puzzles just because you can OoC, because IN character you're of below average intelligence.

You presented an option, and I was just pointing out that it was easily exploited.
And as a player I wouldn't appreciate your attitude towards RP. There's an interesting puzzle or mystery to be solved? Sorry Player X, you have to sit in the corner in silence with the pointed dunce cap on while the rest of us have fun because the DM doesn't think there's enough mechanical punishment in the system for your low stats, he needed to create social punishment as well.

[Person_Man]

Just speaking for myself (and I know I'm in the minority here), I tend to hate fiddly simulationist rules. If I want to play an intelligent Fighter, I hate that I have to waste one of the most important character resources (Ability Score points or a high roll) on a mostly useless Ability Score (Intelligence). (Or convince the DM and the other players that its ok for my Int 8 Fighter to act intelligently most of the time).

Given your concern over high Ability Scores, I suggest you just ignore them entirely. Let people describe and roleplay their characters however they want. Assume a +3ish bonus for anything derived from an Ability Score. When they get them from class levels, players can still spend an Ability Score Increase to get an additional +1 bonus to the relevant derived statistics for one Ability Score if they want. (And when they take a half-Feat that gives +1 to an Ability Score and some other modest benefits, they gain no bonues, and instead gain the benefits of a second half-Feat).

[Jacque]

I have always found in D&D that the disadvantages of having a low intelligence, wisdom or charisma is far less critical than having a low dexterity, constitution, and to some extend strength. I too impose limitations on the players in my group with a low mental score, as low scores should also have an impact on the game. Rulewise, these impacts doesn't come up often enough, so I have to come up with my own limitations (or punishments as some might call them).

I think it is completely reasonable as long as the player is informed about it at character generation.

[Knaight]

No, I meant whichever result is best for each individual score. I may have to revise this rule to force standard array if people start abusing it like this, but so far no-one has. The idea is to have some control over the kind of character you want to play, while still having a bit of the "organic" feel of rolling stats and getting surprises.

The 27-25-23 method is probably better for this. Basically, you roll 3 of your stats, then get the other three by subtracting those three from 27, 25, and 23. If subtraction puts one of these above 18, then you shift the excess points to the score used to subtract. In general that's a non issue, as an 8 or lower would need to be rolled then assigned to the 27 to get that effect, a 6 or lower rolled and assigned to the 25 to get that effect, and a 4 or lower assigned to the 23 to get that effect.

If you want to cap the numbers at 16, that can also work. You could reduce the numbers to 25-23-21, but that just gets punitive.

[Pex]

The 27-25-23 method is probably better for this. Basically, you roll 3 of your stats, then get the other three by subtracting those three from 27, 25, and 23. If subtraction puts one of these above 18, then you shift the excess points to the score used to subtract. In general that's a non issue, as an 8 or lower would need to be rolled then assigned to the 27 to get that effect, a 6 or lower rolled and assigned to the 25 to get that effect, and a 4 or lower assigned to the 23 to get that effect.

If you want to cap the numbers at 16, that can also work. You could reduce the numbers to 25-23-21, but that just gets punitive.

I love 27-25-23.

There's also a +2 you can put in any score afterwards, but given the paradigm of 5E probably not necessary and maybe even distasteful for 5E Point Buy fandom who would use this as a compromise. For 3E in which it was developed and Pathfinder, the +2 that comes in before racial modifiers is needed.

Trying it out.

Rolled: 17, 8, 14

27 - 17 = 10
25 - 14 = 9
23 - 8 = 15

Final: 17, 15, 14, 10, 9, 8

Even for 3E that's not bad without the +2.

Play non-variant human: 18, 16, 15, 11, 10, 9 - any class would drool for this.

Rolled: 16, 12, 16

27 - 16 = 11
25 - 16 = 9
23 - 12 = 11

Play non-variant human: 17, 17, 13, 12, 12, 10

Alright. I'm convinced that extra +2 is not needed for 5E.