stat rolling alternative

[numerek]

I wanted my players to use point buy for their stats, but the players wanted to roll their characters (mainly one player, but everybody ended up using the rolling system I came up with)

I pushed back for while but finally decided to see if I could come up with a rolling scheme that I wouldn't mind them using.

System
7+d8 you can reroll repeatedly but with a lower die each time, d6, d4, d2
do this 6 times

Advantages of this rolling system
The stats are in the same range as point buy lowest is 8 highest is 15
The average expected value is similar to 4d6 drop lowest 12.2 vs 12.24
Similar to point buy average as well, if you take no stat above 13 point buy average is 12.5, if you take 15s and 8s point buy average is 11.5

Interesting aspects
if the players is going for highest expected result odds of getting 8 on any one roll is
.375*.333*.25*.5*100%=%1.5625 so dump stats are far rarer than max starting stats 12.5%

rerolling 4s on the d8 is probably worth while even though the expected result is 3.85 because a 4 is an 11 which is 0 Ability Score Modifier, and you have a 1 in 3 chance of changing that to a +1.


resulthighest expectedreroll 4 on d8reroll if you can get higher
81.56%2.08%3.9%
94.69%6.25%11.72%
109.38%12.5%7.81%
1121.88%12.5%18.23%
1218.75%20.83%10.42%
1318.75%20.83%22.92%
1412.5%12.5%12.5%
1512.5%12.5%12.5%


I still prefer point buy but I was fine with the stats they got from this rolling method.

Anyways I thought I would share with the community.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

In concept, I really like this.
I have considered using the point-buy system, but my group is very much against it... most of us have been playing since advanced 2nd edition, and they feel that the rolled stats are such an iconic part of the dnd experience.
In 5e, bounded accuracy has made high stats much more important however. It is true that bounded accuracy existed in 2nd as well... Stats were capped at 18... but we just rolled 3d6 flat back then.
With my current group, we are rolling 4d6, drop the lowest, which if I recall is what the book suggests. This has resulted in some very high stats. I have more than one player at my table with 20 in their high stat at first level. I just don't feel that a first level character should be the strongest man in the world....
For my next campaign, I may consider using your method. Thank you for sharing.

[Spacehamster]

Good idea. :) my group and I have always liked that our characters should feel heroic so we do the complete opposite with roll 4d6 reroll 1s and remove the lowest. This time everyone got completely bonkers stats, my character has two 18s 1 17 and two 16 and a 14. xD

On another note I were thinking of a higher array of stats for groups that enjoy having heroic characters, 18, 16, 14, 12, 12 and 10. Should work fine as long as you adjust difficulty accordingly?

[jkat718]

AnyDice (http://anydice.com/program/5d89)! This is an...interesting distribution. You have a 2:1 chance of not having a bonus to an ability, and it's 3:1 that you don't have a penalty. I rather like this, because I prefer my "heroes" to be at least average (except for specific RPing purposes, such as flaws). It also eliminates the (IMO ridiculous) fear of negative ability bonuses that many players have.

[Pex]

I don't like 5E Point Buy because it absolutely refuses an 18 at 1st level. I don't demand nor require one for my characters, but I abhor the denying of it. The traditional 4d6 rolling method allows for the possibility. As such, a 1st level 5E character can have a 20 when you add in racial modifiers. 5E does not forbid this. Your system is still refusing the 18. On the plus side it does allow for multiple 14's and 15's without an 8 or maybe just one 8. Point Buy extreme is 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8. With your method you can theoretically have 15, 14, 14, 13, 11, 10.

Some players like to roll for that 18 possibility, even if it's after racial modifiers. Some players don't like Point Buy because it is inherently zero-sum. To be really good at something must mean being sucky at something else. Nothing wrong with being sucky at something. What's wrong, in these players' opinion including mine, is the forcing of it. Your method does allow the possibility of not being sucky at something but still denies being really good.

So, honest question, no snark: Why do you not want 1st level characters to have an 18?

[CantigThimble]

I also like the idea of having an 18 at first level, thats kinda the point of rolling stats. It's east to mod them in to point-buy, just follow the pattern and make each point past 15 cost 2 points so 16 costs 11, 17 costs 13 and 18 costs 15.

Perhaps some kind of trade in to add d4 to a stat or two?

[numerek]

AnyDice (http://anydice.com/program/5d89)! This is an...interesting distribution. You have a 2:1 chance of not having a bonus to an ability, and it's 3:1 that you don't have a penalty. I rather like this, because I prefer my "heroes" to be at least average (except for specific RPing purposes, such as flaws). It also eliminates the (IMO ridiculous) fear of negative ability bonuses that many players have.

Your function rerolls 2 on a d4 which is why your chance of getting a 1 is higher than it should be. Other than that nice function.

adding a -1 gives you the percentages I put in the highest expected column This also makes the d = 2 condition unnecessary

function: numerek D:n X:n{

if X > ((D-1)/2){

result: X + 7
} else {

D: D - 2
result: [numerek D 1dD]
}
}

Adding an additional condition gets you the middle column

function: numerek D:n X:n{

if X > ((D - 1) / 2) & (D - X) < 4{

result: X + 7
} else {

D: D - 2
result: [numerek D 1dD]
}
}

removing the division and increasing the - by 2 you get column 3

function: numerek D:n X:n{

if X > (D - 3){

result: X + 7
} else {

D: D - 2
result: [numerek D 1dD]
}
}



So, honest question, no snark: Why do you not want 1st level characters to have an 18?

I like the point buy because it lets everybody start the game off with an equal footing. My players didn't want point buy so I tried to come up with a rolling system most similar to point buy. They (meaning the one guy mainly although another guy mentioned stuff also) voiced some of the same things that have been voiced hear.

[Pex]

I like the point buy because it lets everybody start the game off with an equal footing. My players didn't want point buy so I tried to come up with a rolling system most similar to point buy. They (meaning the one guy mainly although another guy mentioned stuff also) voiced some of the same things that have been voiced hear.

Still not trying to sound snarky, but that's not quite answering the question. Everyone would still be on equal footing if you used 32 points for Point Buy instead of the book's recommended 27. You could also allow purchases of 16, 17, or 18 and provide for more linear cost increase for scores 14 and higher so that an 18 is not mathematically forbidden. For your rolling method you could have used 8 + 1d10, allowing for an 18 with the risk of getting a 9.

Point Buy, just considering the concept itself, does not forbid 18s at first level. What forbids the 18 is the implementation the DM uses - not given enough points, 18 can't even be purchased, can't purchase a score that will give an 18 when racial modifiers are added in including human. 4E had Point Buy. An 18 is possible if given enough points. Same is true for Pathfinder and 3E. 5E is the first D&D system with Point Buy that denies the 18 as an "official" thing even though it's only a variant and the usual dice rolling method is given which allows for the 18.

[Mandragola]

Personally I don't think there's any need to have bonuses higher than +3 at level 1. I also want at least the first couple of ASIs a character picks up to be meaningful. I like point buy and would always use it I think. It's clearly the case that rolled characters are better, but I don't think that translates to being more fun. It means you don't have to make choices because you can have everything.

Still, just goes to show people's opinions are different.

[ChubbyRain]

The current point buy system works for my group. However I've found with this and other groups that removing the racial scores and giving them points to spend however they want really goes a long way at fixing issues with ability score generation.

Current: Each PC does not gain their racial ability score increase.

Each PC gains +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1

PCs really don't need a +4 at first level, though really level 1 is level 4 or 5 in the new system....

[numerek]

Still not trying to sound snarky, but that's not quite answering the question. Everyone would still be on equal footing if you used 32 points for Point Buy instead of the book's recommended 27. You could also allow purchases of 16, 17, or 18 and provide for more linear cost increase for scores 14 and higher so that an 18 is not mathematically forbidden. For your rolling method you could have used 8 + 1d10, allowing for an 18 with the risk of getting a 9.

Point Buy, just considering the concept itself, does not forbid 18s at first level. What forbids the 18 is the implementation the DM uses - not given enough points, 18 can't even be purchased, can't purchase a score that will give an 18 when racial modifiers are added in including human. 4E had Point Buy. An 18 is possible if given enough points. Same is true for Pathfinder and 3E. 5E is the first D&D system with Point Buy that denies the 18 as an "official" thing even though it's only a variant and the usual dice rolling method is given which allows for the 18.

I guess I could have said I like 5e's variant point buy rules. Beyond that its all arbitrary, you could also let people go above 20 in a stat and you could give them extra points from point buy scores less than 8. Let them roll d20s for stats or d100s etc.

As I said I wanted to use the book's point buy system but I care more that my players and I have a good time so I came up with something that was a compromise.

[coredump]

Back in the day you could start with an 18, but that had to be possible because that was the *only* way to get an 18. There were no 'stat bumps'

Then came 3E, and you could start at 18 and get stat bumps, but who cared since you were going to be pumping up your stats a ton anyway.

Now you can't get an 18, but you can increase them.... but only to 20. If you allowed an 18 (or a 20 after racials) then there is no where to go.

I prefer the character to improve more as he adventures. Standard lvl 1 is +5 to hit, being +6 or +7 is a *big* improvement. It also 'robs' you of getting improvements at lvl 4/8

I have been toying with even stricter starting values, and giving more ASIs. Just to give a steeper 'improvement curve'.

[ad_hoc]

I also think that in 5e it is best to have a max of 15 before racial modifiers. This is especially true if you are using feats.

I like the idea of the method presented. My only concern is that it is not unlikely for PCs to not have any 15s or even any 14s.

That seems a bit low.

Have you thought about a method with 16 or 17 as the highest possibility but with low chances?

One method for randomising stats but keeping the element of point buy where raising some stats lowers others is to use playing cards. The traditional way is to use the 2s-6s taking out 2 cards with a sum of 8. That leaves you with 18 cards, 3 cards per stat gives you stats from 6-18 (3d5+3). I am sure it could be modified to have a different output.

[Pex]

If your prime is 18 at 1st level ability score boosts would then encourage increasing your non-primes which helps for saving throws and skills. It would also encourage taking feats. Many players like feats. The character improves as the levels progress.

It's not a question of needing an 18 at first level but rather it's nice to have, no one should have to apologize for wanting it, and not needing it is not the same thing as no one should have it. Liking to have an 18 at 1st level is not the same thing as wanting 20s across the board, 30's, give me The POWER! I want to WIN D&D!

Remember, again, 5E does not forbid an 18 at 1st level.

[ChubbyRain]

If your prime is 18 at 1st level ability score boosts would then encourage increasing your non-primes which helps for saving throws and skills. It would also encourage taking feats. Many players like feats. The character improves as the levels progress.

It's not a question of needing an 18 at first level but rather it's nice to have, no one should have to apologize for wanting it, and not needing it is not the same thing as no one should have it. Liking to have an 18 at 1st level is not the same thing as wanting 20s across the board, 30's, give me The POWER! I want to WIN D&D!

Remember, again, 5E does not forbid an 18 at 1st level.

Good point, probably going to adjust my home games.

[ad_hoc]

If your prime is 18 at 1st level ability score boosts would then encourage increasing your non-primes which helps for saving throws and skills. It would also encourage taking feats. Many players like feats. The character improves as the levels progress.

I think it over powers feats.

There should be a significant drawback to taking a feat.

On the flip, players that don't want feats should not be punished by it by only having their secondary stat available to increase.

Feats are generally well balanced against improving a primary stat. They are often significantly better than improving a secondary stat.

Remember that the game is designed around the base rules, not the optional ones. Without feats I don't think it's a big deal to start with an 18 or even a 20. You will be a bit more powerful than others early on but it will even out. I don't think rolling works if you also use feats.

If you start with an 18 or a 20 in your primary stat, there is actually less room to improve as you level too which is another drawback to starting with high stats.

[coredump]

If your prime is 18 at 1st level ability score boosts would then encourage increasing your non-primes which helps for saving throws and skills. It would also encourage taking feats. Many players like feats. The character improves as the levels progress.

It's not a question of needing an 18 at first level but rather it's nice to have, no one should have to apologize for wanting it, and not needing it is not the same thing as no one should have it. Liking to have an 18 at 1st level is not the same thing as wanting 20s across the board, 30's, give me The POWER! I want to WIN D&D!

Remember, again, 5E does not forbid an 18 at 1st level.
Wanting to have an 18 at 1st level is just like wanting to have 20's.... its just a matter of degree. Yes, you do want "Moar Power". Not saying that is a bad thing, but it is what it is.

It is making PCs more powerful faster, they can now start with a 20, which is a *huge* boost in damage, or spells known, or any number of things relying on yous prime state. That is pretty much the definition of 'more power'.

It will not encourage upping their lower stats.... it will let them take their lvl 12 feat at lvl8, they are not going to all of a sudden boost their lower stats.

If you want to encourage that, there are other, better, ways of doing so.

Give out a free +1 at level 2, but it must be applied to one of the lowest 3 stats. Or have the DM assign it.
Have ASI's be +3 instead of +2, but you can only apply +2 to any one stat. Allow feats to replace +2 of the 3 possible.

By allowing an 18, you are allowing a 20

[ekestrel]

If your prime is 18 at 1st level ability score boosts would then encourage increasing your non-primes which helps for saving throws and skills. It would also encourage taking feats. Many players like feats. The character improves as the levels progress.

I think much of this debate depends on your DM and gaming group. I've played with powergamers who were frustrated with failing any checks or not dealing the most damage. I've also played with folks who felt that failure was a story moment and contributed to the game.

If your group is based around combat, your DM can offer decent challenges with different monsters. The problem comes with the skill checks and difficulties associated with those checks; when you start with an 18 or 20 in your primary score (or higher, as in 3.x), some saves and checks become trivial (as do the monsters using them).

If your GM emphasizes skill checks outside of combat, the recommended DCs lose their power as well. A regular lock has a recommended DC of 15; with a score of 16, tools, and proficiency, you should succeed about half the time. When you bump that to a 20, you start seeing success far more often then not.

The long and short of it seems to be if your DM wants you to start as a powerful character who succeeds because of those abilities or if you become powerful through learning, effort, and survival. In my eyes, a character who fails a lot at low levels and slowly overcomes those challenges to hit more often, demonstrate better skills, and accumulate feats is a much better story than "I started with 20 in [score] and this will never change."

[Pex]

I think much of this debate depends on your DM and gaming group. I've played with powergamers who were frustrated with failing any checks or not dealing the most damage. I've also played with folks who felt that failure was a story moment and contributed to the game.

If your group is based around combat, your DM can offer decent challenges with different monsters. The problem comes with the skill checks and difficulties associated with those checks; when you start with an 18 or 20 in your primary score (or higher, as in 3.x), some saves and checks become trivial (as do the monsters using them).

If your GM emphasizes skill checks outside of combat, the recommended DCs lose their power as well. A regular lock has a recommended DC of 15; with a score of 16, tools, and proficiency, you should succeed about half the time. When you bump that to a 20, you start seeing success far more often then not.

The long and short of it seems to be if your DM wants you to start as a powerful character who succeeds because of those abilities or if you become powerful through learning, effort, and survival. In my eyes, a character who fails a lot at low levels and slowly overcomes those challenges to hit more often, demonstrate better skills, and accumulate feats is a much better story than "I started with 20 in [score] and this will never change."

I need to check the weather report. I sense a lot of storm with wind.

This is what always gets me. I went through the same thing in 2E. It went away in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E and came right back in 5E just as I knew it would and said so in an old thread. Just because a character has an 18 at 1st level does not mean the player only cares about The POWER! It does not take away the ability to roleplay, to overcome weaknesses, or not even have any weaknesses. A character having an 18 does not mean the player wants 18s across the board and scream and kick and have a temper tantrum because he rolled less than a 10 on a d20.

Critics of an 18 at first level always go right to this extreme. It bothers them so much a 1st level character is really good at something mathematically they insist that's the only thing the player cares about. No player is so superior to everyone else just because they play a character at first level without an 18. Neither is the player with a character who does have an 18 at first level.

That is what's so infuriating to me, the absolute denial of an 18 at first level. I said before. I don't demand it. I don't need it. I am perfectly capable and have done so of playing a 1st level character without an 18. What I object to is the refusal of the possibility and being called names (munchkin, power gamer, rollplayer) just because a particular character does have an 18 at 1st level. Having or liking an 18 at first level does not take away the ability to roleplay, to have a character not just numbers on a sheet, to have a weakness, to overcome a weakness, the ability to grow in campaign story plot, to care about the game world, and all the sorts of things everyone is cheering about.

[coredump]

. A character having an 18 does not mean the player wants 18s across the board and scream and kick and have a temper tantrum because he rolled less than a 10 on a d20.

Critics of an 18 at first level always go right to this extreme. It bothers them so much a 1st level character is really good at something mathematically they insist that's the only thing the player cares about. I am sorry, but you are now making things up, at least in regards to this thread. Of all the people that have given reasons for not allowing an 18, no one mentioned the above situation, except you. And you have brought it up as a strawman argument several times.

No one else is talking about players wanting 18's across the board, no one has said it is the only thing a player cares about.... Perhaps you have heard those complaints elsewhere, but not in this thread. And you are completely ignoring what is actually being said in this thread in order to contest an argument no one is making. No one but you that is....




That is what's so infuriating to me, the absolute denial of an 18 at first level. I said before. I don't demand it. I don't need it. I am perfectly capable and have done so of playing a 1st level character without an 18. What I object to is the refusal of the possibility and being called names (munchkin, power gamer, rollplayer) You seem to be taking this discussion very personally. I have not heard anyone here refer to you as a munchkin, or rollplayer, or anything of the sort.

Perhaps you could address the issues that have actually been presented in this thread.....

[Pex]

I am sorry, but you are now making things up, at least in regards to this thread. Of all the people that have given reasons for not allowing an 18, no one mentioned the above situation, except you. And you have brought it up as a strawman argument several times.

No one else is talking about players wanting 18's across the board, no one has said it is the only thing a player cares about.... Perhaps you have heard those complaints elsewhere, but not in this thread. And you are completely ignoring what is actually being said in this thread in order to contest an argument no one is making. No one but you that is....



You seem to be taking this discussion very personally. I have not heard anyone here refer to you as a munchkin, or rollplayer, or anything of the sort.

Perhaps you could address the issues that have actually been presented in this thread.....



I guess I could have said I like 5e's variant point buy rules. Beyond that its all arbitrary, you could also let people go above 20 in a stat and you could give them extra points from point buy scores less than 8. Let them roll d20s for stats or d100s etc.

As I said I wanted to use the book's point buy system but I care more that my players and I have a good time so I came up with something that was a compromise.

Not literally 20s across the board but same difference.


I think much of this debate depends on your DM and gaming group. I've played with powergamers who were frustrated with failing any checks or not dealing the most damage. I've also played with folks who felt that failure was a story moment and contributed to the game.

There, playing with a power gamer frustrated at failing something, to be disdained, but others who failed at something contributed, to be applauded.
It's an anecdote of something that really happened, fine.

[numerek]

Not literally 20s across the board but same difference.



There, playing with a power gamer frustrated at failing something, to be disdained, but others who failed at something contributed, to be applauded.
It's an anecdote of something that really happened, fine.

I was just saying you have to set a limit somewhere where is arbitrary.

Although I suppose you could also come up with a scheme that has no limit. how about 8 + d2 every time you roll a 2 roll again sum the result of all rolls. would you like that system, has no maximum to your starting stat.

[ekestrel]

There, playing with a power gamer frustrated at failing something, to be disdained, but others who failed at something contributed, to be applauded.
It's an anecdote of something that really happened, fine.

My experience is that their "frustration" can grate very quickly. Meanwhile, hearing people slip on Grease, laugh, talk about trying to slip-n-slide though the BBG's legs is much more fun over the long term.

My proposition is therefore this: That many folks who are too focused on succeeding at everything and on high ability scores often neglect the story, while others who care less about numbers and success seem to enjoy the game more.

Of course, this is my experience and preference. Yours may vary, and that's the beauty of DnD. If you're having fun, enjoy your high scores! :smallsmile:

[Sindeloke]

My experience has been that if you offer an 18, a lot of players won't even take it, but maybe that's just my group.

The way I do stats is to hand out a 16, a 14 and a 14 to everyone. They choose which three stats to put those numbers in, and write them indelibly on their character sheet. Then they roll 6+2d6 three times and distribute those scores amongst the remaining attributes. You could theoretically leave your main stat empty for the first part and gamble on an 18, but no one has.

This has the chief virtues of ensuring a generally uniform power curve the way point buy does, but also creating unique characters with unexpected strengths, like smart paladins and charismatic barbarians. But here's the interesting thing to me: so far, out of all the characters we've made, only the wild sorcerer started with an 18. Everyone else has opted to put a 14 in their racial +2, for a 16 mainstat and a 16 secondary. The only exception was the guy who played a +str race wizard (16 Int 14 Dex and Con, naturally).

Maybe we're weird or something, but but least two of the players are some degree of powergamey optimizers, and even then they look at 5e and figure they'd rather have two good scores than one great.

[coredump]

Not literally 20s across the board but same difference.



There, playing with a power gamer frustrated at failing something, to be disdained, but others who failed at something contributed, to be applauded.
It's an anecdote of something that really happened, fine.
Yep, and neither of them said what you claimed. Gee, someone used the term 'power gamer'. Somehow you twisted that into assaulting your stance of wanting an 18. Yet he never said that, never implied it.... it had nothing to do with what he was talking about. But someone you knew he must have meant you.....

You seem to be over-reacting to things no one here is saying.....

[jkat718]

For anyone who's interested, I made a graph (desmos.com/calculator/o9igbm0nli) to calculate what the point buy cost would be for ability scores above 15. I find that using these values fixes the issue of wanting 20s to be available at character creation, but also wanting the zero-sum balancing offered by point buy. Interestingly, it still disallows having a 20 before racial modifiers (unless you give your players more points to spend, of course), because it costs 28 points. Out of curiosity, why is 32 point buy often considered the next step up, point buy-wise, for "epic tier" campaigns? That is, what can you do with 32 points, specifically, that you can't do with, say, 30? Is it just because it's 5 points higher and 5 is a nice, round number? Or is it a holdover from something else?