Bad dm'ing or just bad luck?

[Kwinza]

Hi guys, I need some opinions.

My current DM loves having the group roll for stats, which is normally fun but can lead to some slightly unbalanced characters, which unfortunately it has done for our current setup.

We have 3 characters who have 3 stats each that are 18+(after racials), 1 character that is perfectly on point buy and 1 character whose highest stat is a 14(after racials).

Now I must ask, is it bad for a DM to leave a guy with such bad stats or is it simply being fair to the other players?

Wouldn't the stat difference make balancing combat a complete nightmare?


Cheers for any opinions.

[Kryx]

This is the result of rolling for stats. This is why many advocate not doing so.

You could try to set upper and lower limits to try to offset the full random.

[Gurka]

I won't say it's bad DMing. It's how dice go. It's for that reason that in my games we almost universally do point buy. Rolling can be fun, but it really stinks when one guy ends up way below the rest, just like you describe. Were I DM, I'd let that guy reroll, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the "right thing". I really just prefer for my players to have fun, and when somebody doesn't feel like they can contribute as much as the rest of the group, they won't have as much fun. Even if it's really a false perception.

The most fun character I ever played in a game of 3.5 rolled abysmally. His highest stat was a 13, and he had three under 10. So, instead of complaining or fighting it, I embraced the suck. I took the Expert class (yes, the NPC, weaker than a PC class), and since he didn't have stats enough to fight worth much, to cast spells past the first few levels, or the skill points or bonuses to be very good as a skill monkey, I just took academic and crafting skills and thought my way through to creative solutions that required no dice rolls (on my part anyway).

By the end of the game, he owned a whole town, and never made a single attack roll... and the campaign took place during a war.

[Giant2005]

That isn't a bad DM per-se, but an extremely gullible one. It is incredibly rare for one person to get 3 18+'s, obviously 3 players all rolling 3 sets of 18+'s is due to a whole lot of fudging. The poor guy that kept things on the up and up is weaker than the others because he more is honest.
Having said all of that, I say let them play their super-powered characters - it doesn't really matter. There is usually a lot more fun to be found in the weaker characters anyway and there is certainly a lot more fun to be found in the hands of the non-powergamer regardless of stats.
Hopefully the cheats will come around.

[Kwinza]

That isn't a bad DM per-se, but an extremely gullible one. It is incredibly rare for one person to get 3 18+'s, obviously 3 players all rolling 3 sets of 18+'s is due to a whole lot of fudging. The poor guy that kept things on the up and up is weaker than the others because he more is honest.
Having said all of that, I say let them play their super-powered characters - it doesn't really matter. There is usually a lot more fun to be found in the weaker characters anyway and there is certainly a lot more fun to be found in the hands of the non-powergamer regardless of stats.
Hopefully the cheats will come around.

We are RL friends and were all in the same room when we rolled. No cheating I'm afraid.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As the others said, it's not bad DMing per se when people roll for stats; in my experience that's more of a collective decision and the players know the risks going in.

I prefer to let people roll, then either take the rolled stats or the standard array, whichever they like more. That way, there's a safety net that ensures that everyone can have decent stats.

5e is pretty forgiving to low stats though, and as long as your unfortunate comrade plays sensibly, they should be able to get by. Especially because you've got 3 PCs that are slightlysignificantly overpowered (I thought they had 1no 18 each). As a group, that should more than balance.

[Giant2005]

We are RL friends and were all in the same room when we rolled. No cheating I'm afraid.

Well that is some pretty amazing luck then!
Either way, it doesn't really matter - the weaker guy will get by just fine and will have a lot of fun doing it.
In roleplaying games, it isn't the stronger characters that have more fun, it is the stronger roleplayers and having crappy stats provides a lot of roleplaying avenues.

[Sigreid]

I consider it part of the fun of rolling. I've had a blast and been very successful with a character that had their highest stat at 11. That being said, if the player seemed unhappy, I'd let them re-roll or use standard array.

[ghost_warlock]

Would the DM be bad because you rolled for stats?

No.

Would the DM be bad because he forced a player to play a character that they hated because it had much worse stats than everyone else at the table?

Yes. Nobody should be forced to play a character they hate playing.

[Kryx]

Would the DM be bad because he forced a player to play a character that they hated because it had much worse stats than everyone else at the table?

Yes. Nobody should be forced to play a character they hate playing.
This doesn't make any sense. You either choose to play with rolled stats or not. Calling the GM bad for him sticking to the rolled stats system is illogical.

[Malifice]

DMs fine.

You the one that rolled bad?

[Gurka]

I guess one question that need be asked, is whether or not the DM demanded everybody roll, or was pointbuy/array an option?

[mephnick]

I guess one question that need be asked, is whether or not the DM demanded everybody roll, or was pointbuy/array an option?

Yeah, then it's bad DMing. Though I consider having people roll individual arrays bad DMing anyway, because it inevitably ends in situations like this, but I wouldn't want to be accused of telling people they play the game wrong. I think if you have to roll, it's best to have everyone roll an array and then let players choose between any of the arrays rolled. Then if there's one overwhelming array (like 3 18's which breaks the feat/asi system completely) then at least everyone is broken.

[Shining Wrath]

What I did was let everyone roll for stats, but each player had access to any set of numbers rolled. As it turned out, we had two sets that were clearly superior (two 17's!), and people chose those. There was one set that was very solid, everything 13 to 16, but people went for the 17's.

There was one 18 ... paired with a 3. No one wanted that 18 badly enough to dump a dump stat that hard.

Anyway, it allows for characters to be different than point buy / default array without having disparity between players.

[noce]

We did this way: roll for 7 stats and drop the lowest one, each stat is rolled with 4d6 (drop lowest).
Then, if a player rolls bad, he can discard his results and use 27 point buy.

[Sjappo]

Going toward solutions. A few present themselves.

1: there is no problem, the player with the low stats is satisfied with his roll. Not very likely since you posted here.
2: allow the player to ditch the rolls and reroll or ( as noce sugested) use point-buy
3: allow the player to grab one of the other rolled sets. This could lead to some bitching from the point-buy player.

Rolling for stats is very random and will lead to situations like this. As has been noted before. One elegant solution I've read about on these pages is the following. All players roll for a set of stats. Straight 3d6, 4d6 drop lowest, whatever you want. The players are free to pick one of the rolled sets. You keep the randomness but loose the unfairness of rolling a bad set.

[PoeticDwarf]

Hi guys, I need some opinions.

My current DM loves having the group roll for stats, which is normally fun but can lead to some slightly unbalanced characters, which unfortunately it has done for our current setup.

We have 3 characters who have 3 stats each that are 18+(after racials), 1 character that is perfectly on point buy and 1 character whose highest stat is a 14(after racials).

Now I must ask, is it bad for a DM to leave a guy with such bad stats or is it simply being fair to the other players?

Wouldn't the stat difference make balancing combat a complete nightmare?


Cheers for any opinions.

In my campaign one guy rolls and they all use those stats (one time a natural 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 14.

Now it's too late, but if someone rolls really low the DM can say he may choose for point buy.

[Kwinza]

I guess one question that need be asked, is whether or not the DM demanded everybody roll, or was pointbuy/array an option?

We were forced to roll.

And just in case this appears like i'm whining i'm of the the 3 18+'s.

[Gurka]

Well, I'm definitely not a fan of making rolls mandatory for attributes. I'm personally of the belief that there should always be a point buy or array(s) available to those who don't want the randomness. It's especially the case for somebody that wants to play a MAD character, since there's typically an Array available with good stats across the board, though it may lack the exceptionally high ones.

Again, I think the importance of high attributes is inflated overall, but there are certain character concepts that really do require them to be effective, and there's no doubt that they make life easier no matter the character in question.

[ThermalSlapShot]

In a game in which having low stats means so much to the overall experience to the game I believe rolling for stats, or at least not giving the option of rolling or standard array, is showing that the DM is not doing their job.

So much in the game is determined by your ability scores.

The biggest factor of ability scores is the ability to have fun. With low ability scores the d20 becomes more and more important and not your character. This leads to the character having no control over what they do (unless they use certain spells of course but that play style isn't for everyone).

Low scores and you want to attack, use skills, perform a contest, or whatever else... You have a higher probability than average of failing that skill check. And it isn't like the skill system is nice to anyone to begin with, compound how bad the skill system is with the fact that you have low ability scores and what you end up with is crap.

You don't play D&D to suck, you play D&D to be awesome.

[Gurka]

Low scores and you want to attack, use skills, perform a contest, or whatever else... You have a higher probability than average of failing that skill check. And it isn't like the skill system is nice to anyone to begin with, compound how bad the skill system is with the fact that you have low ability scores and what you end up with is crap.

This is exactly the character I mentioned traveled his adventuring career by finding as many ways to accomplish things without making die rolls as possible. It was tremendously fun and challenging, but certainly not for the faint of heart, not for those that had a particular idea in mind to start.

[Easy_Lee]

What I did was let everyone roll for stats, but each player had access to any set of numbers rolled. As it turned out, we had two sets that were clearly superior (two 17's!), and people chose those. There was one set that was very solid, everything 13 to 16, but people went for the 17's.

There was one 18 ... paired with a 3. No one wanted that 18 badly enough to dump a dump stat that hard.

Anyway, it allows for characters to be different than point buy / default array without having disparity between players.

I was going to suggest doing this. Propose this system to your DM and see what he says. It's the only way to roll stats while being truly fair, besides rolling stats once and making everyone at the table use the same numbers.

[coredump]

I don't see the problem. It isn't like having a 14 is a debilitating disease. If a million PCs manage to get by with a +5 at first level, this guy can get by with a +4. The 'power' of a PC relies much more on the Class options and the player decisions rather than ability scores.

If the DM is particularly concerned, I would give him some other perk. Maybe a form of Lucky... maybe reroll 1 die every session, or reroll any 1's, or maybe leave it DM dependent, where he just gets lucky more often. Maybe give him a magic item, or a bonus skill proficiency.


OTOH, I am dying to find out what rolling technique was used.... I can't think of anything that would get such a range of scores without some *really* lucky/unlucky rolls...

[Person_Man]

I think it was bad luck, and in general is a weakness of the system. Remember, in 1E/2E when the tradition was established, it was generally expected that most of your characters would die off. It was much more of a roguelike game.

This is why I personally prefer a point buy when I DM, or just give everyone strait 16s, or if they really want their characters to be determined randomly give the player a standard array but determine the order they're assigned to ability scores randomly.

[ThermalSlapShot]

This is exactly the character I mentioned traveled his adventuring career by finding as many ways to accomplish things without making die rolls as possible. It was tremendously fun and challenging, but certainly not for the faint of heart, not for those that had a particular idea in mind to start.


There are two styles I was thinking of.

Getting the highest AC possible as early as possible with as many skills as possible. Some combo of Fighter (AC+1 or reaction style), Knowledge Cleric, and Rogue. Use the help action all the time with fighting and with skills.

Or

Utility caster, sorcerer with Haste/Fly/Whatever twin specialist.

People don't generally get into games and say this is the way they want to play. This is typically NPC type stuff, not the stuff for the protagonists.

[Sigreid]

You keep the randomness but loose the unfairness of rolling a bad set.

While I don't see anything wrong with the options you presented if that's what the group wants to do, I take issue with this sentence. If everyone rolls using the same method and without cheating it is absolutely fair. Everyone has the same chance of any particular array. It will likely wind up being unequal, but fairness and equality of result are not equivalent statements.

[Sjappo]

While I don't see anything wrong with the options you presented if that's what the group wants to do, I take issue with this sentence. If everyone rolls using the same method and without cheating it is absolutely fair. Everyone has the same chance of any particular array. It will likely wind up being unequal, but fairness and equality of result are not equivalent statements.

While your definition of fairness and equality are correct I find myself disagreeing with you. I've played 2nd edition quite extensively and we used 4d6 drop lowest which in itself is a pretty generous rolling method. And the players rolling the lowest scores always complained about the fairness of the system.

Knowing that the other player is just lucky with his 2 18's and a 14 as lowest score doesn't make it fait that you'll have to compete against that with a highest score of 16 for an entire year, or 5 years in on campaign.

I don't know if I can sum it up in one sentence.
Even if the system gives players equal chances to get good rolls doesn't make it fair if one player winds up with significantly lower rolls than the other. The system is punishing people for rolling lousy, which is, in my opinion, not fair.

[hawklost]

While your definition of fairness and equality are correct I find myself disagreeing with you. I've played 2nd edition quite extensively and we used 4d6 drop lowest which in itself is a pretty generous rolling method. And the players rolling the lowest scores always complained about the fairness of the system.

Knowing that the other player is just lucky with his 2 18's and a 14 as lowest score doesn't make it fait that you'll have to compete against that with a highest score of 16 for an entire year, or 5 years in on campaign.

I don't know if I can sum it up in one sentence.
Even if the system gives players equal chances to get good rolls doesn't make it fair if one player winds up with significantly lower rolls than the other. The system is punishing people for rolling lousy, which is, in my opinion, not fair.

Ummm, that is actually the definition of fairness. If you have an equal opportunity to do something (number of rolls, dice rolled, number of attempts) and it is exactly the same, then it is fair.

I cannot see how anything would be more fair that actually had you rolling dice in any way. Because to follow the logic you have just said, rolling lousy is not fair. So anyone who rolls a die and misses, well that isn't fair, so they should just automatically hit. Oh, they rolled and did low damage? Now, they shall just do normalized damage. Oh, they need a knowledge check? Well, lets just see, nope didn't make it.... well, you made it since that wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Equal Chance = Fair (NOT Balanced)

Lets look at it this way. I buy 2 lotto tickets randomly and hand one to you randomly. Can you really say that there is anything unfair in that scenario? The only variable left in the entire thing is Luck and luck is not something that any human has control over.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've played 2nd edition quite extensively and we used 4d6 drop lowest which in itself is a pretty generous rolling method.
Generous indeed. In OD&D by RAW the referee rolled the dice and told you what your abilities were. (Men and Magic, pages 10 and 11). From there you chose your role. Granted, we players always rolled our own dice. Once you got your scored, you could trade 2 for 1 or 3 for one to boost your prime requisite ability. The major reason to do that was to boost experience earned. You could not boost con, char, nor dex. Only Str, Wis, Intel.

With Greyhawk's arrival more attributes were more useful than in the original game. I don't recall the 4d6 drop 1 arriving until 1e. The DMG had five or six ways to do it, the one I saw most used was roll 12 sets of 3d6, select six of them. (Even so, a friend of mine made a gnome with a 4 charisma ... just because!)

And the players rolling the lowest scores always complained about the fairness of the system.
It was true then as well.


Knowing that the other player is just lucky with his 2 18's and a 14 as lowest score doesn't make it fait that you'll have to compete against that with a highest score of 16 for an entire year, or 5 years in on campaign. Why are you competing against someone in your party?

Even if the system gives players equal chances to get good rolls doesn't make it fair if one player winds up with significantly lower rolls than the other. The system is punishing people for rolling lousy, which is, in my opinion, not fair.
Any system based on dice will be swingy, from word one. That's been part of the game since its origin.

It's still swingy in practice. This point is underscored every time you have to make a saving throw.

[Sjappo]

Ummm, that is actually the definition of fairness. If you have an equal opportunity to do something (number of rolls, dice rolled, number of attempts) and it is exactly the same, then it is fair.

I cannot see how anything would be more fair that actually had you rolling dice in any way. Because to follow the logic you have just said, rolling lousy is not fair. So anyone who rolls a die and misses, well that isn't fair, so they should just automatically hit. Oh, they rolled and did low damage? Now, they shall just do normalized damage. Oh, they need a knowledge check? Well, lets just see, nope didn't make it.... well, you made it since that wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Equal Chance = Fair (NOT Balanced)

Lets look at it this way. I buy 2 lotto tickets randomly and hand one to you randomly. Can you really say that there is anything unfair in that scenario? The only variable left in the entire thing is Luck and luck is not something that any human has control over.
I get what you say about attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws and what not. And you would be right.

But ...

The fairness is not in the rolling of stats, it is in the system around the rolling. You have exactly one chance to make your character. One, not a bazillion like attacks ore something. One. And if you luck out you get a character that is not very good at what you want it to do. It might even be worse at its primary task as a more luckily created character is at its secondary task, which could be your primary task. It can, and in a lot of cases will, detract from your fun. And that may be equal opportunity but is, from a system standpoint, not fair.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair it is. What you seem to object to is the constraints it puts on your choices. Understandable, since we do this for fun and in our fun time not having choices seems counterintuitive.

[Sjappo]

Yes. In OD&D by RAW the referee rolled the dice and told you what you got. From there you chose your role. Granted, we players always rolled our own dice. Once you got your scored, you could trade 2 for 1 or 3 for one to boost your prime requisite. The reason to do that was to boost experience earned. With Greyhawk's arrival more attributes were useful than in the original game. I don't recall the 4d6 drop 1 arriving until 1e.
Might be that we used an other system then. I recall being able to ditch low scores. Could be we use 8 x 3d6 drop lowest 2 scores or something. Never played OD&D or anything before 2nd ed. I do recall a DM trying to force some characters on us, names and all. We quickly cured him of that idea.



It was true then as well.

Why are you competing against someone in your party?
Well, you are and you aren't. I'm not system savvy enough to know if this is still a problem but in 3E good stats could make a cleric outfight a fighter. I've a feeling the niches are better protected in 5E but low stats could surely hamper you in playing your favourite class. And I could see a high dex cleric, fighter or ranger out sneak a low roll, low dex rogue. You are competing, not against your players, but to be relevant in your niche. And if low stats disqualify you for your niche because a non-specialist with high stats out-performs you, you've lost your niche and your function in the team.



Any system based on dice will be swingy, from word one. That's been part of the game since its origin.

It's still swingy in practice. This point is underscored every time you have to make a saving throw.
And well it should be. After character creation.

[Sjappo]

Fair it is. What you seem to object to is the constraints it puts on your choices. Understandable, since we do this for fun and in our fun time not having choices seems counterintuitive.
Not really.

Look, I get that dice rolling is part of DnD. And rolling low on a check, saving throw and whatnot will hamper your choices at times. Even take you out of the game for some time. But this is mostly minor, barring character death, and comes with the territory.

The consequences of rolling bad at character creation are more far reaching. Rolling bad punishes your character for the entirety of the game. Rolling good rewards you. Rolling bad limits your options at character creation. Because you won't qualify for classes, for armour, for feats. It'll disqualify you for entire sections of the game. It'll have impact on every attack roll, saving throw and skill check you roll. It'll impact HP, AC, ini. These far reaching consequences are what's unfair.

You could argue that you know it is in the system, you know the risks so it is fair. But so is playing Russian roulette with a pistol. You know what you're getting into but it is hardly fair :biggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

But so is playing Russian roulette with a pistol. You know what you're getting into but it is hardly fair :biggrin:

It is both fair and uncertain. Russian Roulette. But it's not a game I play, for fun or otherwise. I leave that to the movies, like The Deer Hunter.

[Sigreid]

I get what you say about attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws and what not. And you would be right.

But ...

The fairness is not in the rolling of stats, it is in the system around the rolling. You have exactly one chance to make your character. One, not a bazillion like attacks ore something. One. And if you luck out you get a character that is not very good at what you want it to do. It might even be worse at its primary task as a more luckily created character is at its secondary task, which could be your primary task. It can, and in a lot of cases will, detract from your fun. And that may be equal opportunity but is, from a system standpoint, not fair.

So again, if your group want's things between the characters to be equal, that's fine, it's each tables game and it should be played the way that is fun for the people at that table. I just think people should use the right words to express their viewpoint. Everyone rolling, or having the same options, is fair but isn't necessarily going to produce equal results. Equal results are not important to me or my group.

[Sjappo]

So again, if your group want's things between the characters to be equal, that's fine, it's each tables game and it should be played the way that is fun for the people at that table. I just think people should use the right words to express their viewpoint. Everyone rolling, or having the same options, is fair but isn't necessarily going to produce equal results. Equal results are not important to me or my group.
Fairness, to me, says something about how unequal these results may be. And how far-reaching consequences may be. But I seem to be in the minority here. I see your case. I stated mine. I think we disagree :smallwink: Well met.

[Seatbelt]

I think the fairness depends on the system. I rolled a 5e character with comically good scores who was undeniably better than everyone else at the party at whatever they were doing. Good rolls make a huge difference in a system where 12-13 is the average difficulty check.

On the other hand, the Saga game I'm running? For the first few levels your ability scores matter a lot. But the higher you level the less they matter (except for things that scale with level like HP or skills trained). The difference between +2 at first level and +2 at 12th level are astronomical.

Now to be fair the difference between a 10 and an 18 is noticeable. But the difference between a 14 and an 18? Largely mitigated by build and class levels.

But in general I think that 5th edition handles dice generated scores poorly. Given how slowly proficiencies scale in 5th edition players depend A LOT more on their raw ability scores.

[JAL_1138]

3d6 straight down
3d6 array, use however
3d6 array with ability to point buy from there (drop a stat to raise another, etc.)
4d6b3 straight down
4d6b3 array, use however
4d6b3 w/ point buy

"4d6b3 array" and "4d6b3 straight down" were the most common in my groups and most others back in Ye Olde Days, I think.

Characters with utterly useless stats like a 3 in CON get hit with the Innkeeper Rule (they go off to do some civilian job, usually running an inn).

Stats mediocre or "bad but not Innkeeper Rule bad"? Get killed off and roll better next time.

You used to roll for HP at first level. I lost a lot of wizards who rolled low on their d4-with-no-CON-bonus. One didn't make it out of the inn we started at. Got drunk, tripped on the stairs, took 1 point of damage and died.

[Pex]

It's a common error to think that just because you use dice rolling you have to use what you first roll, too bad so sad if it's a terrible array. If a player has such a horrible array compared to everyone else you just let him reroll. Those with the great arrays aren't wronged. They still have their great array. Sometimes all that's necessary is to tweak the original roll. You can do trade offs like lower a score by one or two to increase another one or two. Extreme, but sometimes just arbitrarily make one score an 18 if everyone else has one and especially if one or more players have more than one 18. It's not a question of everyone rerolling until you get 18s almost everywhere. It's just a compensation for the inherent luck factor of dice rolling to reroll the poor array. Other options include everyone rolls three arrays and choose which one to use. Usually one array will be poor and easily discarded. The other two will be decent and sometimes one will stand out as pretty awesome.

Dice rolling doesn't claim to be the best ability score generation system ever and doesn't need to be. What it offers is variety of arrays you can't get from point buy because the math won't let it. Alternatively, just use a higher value of point buy than what's suggested or lower the prices to purchase some scores, allowing for getting higher than 15 in 5E's case. You can also go the Pathfinder route where a score of 10 is 0 points and anything lower gives you points to spend elsewhere.

[Shining Wrath]

If enough tables roll enough characters, sooner or later there will be a campaign where one character is 6 18's and another is 6 3's. Depending on the number of players at a typical table it may require quite a few campaign as the odds of all 18's are small (1 in 216 to the sixth power) while the odds of all 3's are smaller (1 in 1296 to the sixth power).

That is fair by the definition of "everyone had an equal chance". It is not fair in the sense of "for the next several months or years, those two players will be equal participants in the campaign".

If you want the second definition of fair, then some other method other than independant random selection of ability scores must be used. If you don't care about the second criterion, then random generation is just fine.

[Sigreid]

If enough tables roll enough characters, sooner or later there will be a campaign where one character is 6 18's and another is 6 3's. Depending on the number of players at a typical table it may require quite a few campaign as the odds of all 18's are small (1 in 216 to the sixth power) while the odds of all 3's are smaller (1 in 1296 to the sixth power).

That is fair by the definition of "everyone had an equal chance". It is not fair in the sense of "for the next several months or years, those two players will be equal participants in the campaign".

If you want the second definition of fair, then some other method other than independant random selection of ability scores must be used. If you don't care about the second criterion, then random generation is just fine.

I don't think I've ever played with a DM that would make you keep a character you completely didn't see a way to play and make fun. I do understand what some of you are saying. I wouldn't have a great time in a bicycle race with Lance Armstrong, even un-juiced. It would be a fair race, but not equal and I wouldn't stand a chance unless he got hit by a truck or something.

[ghost_warlock]

This doesn't make any sense. You either choose to play with rolled stats or not. Calling the GM bad for him sticking to the rolled stats system is illogical.

Actually, the illogical thing is forcing someone to play a game where they're not having fun because they hate their character.

If someone doesn't like their character, have them make a new one that they'll hopefully like more. It's a bloody game and, if it isn't fun, what's the point of playing?

[Malifice]

This is why point buy exists.

If you go with the dice, you are going to get unbalanced characters and random results.

Personally I prefer point buy as it grants the player the opportunity to play the character he wants, and balances the PC's against each other.

But if you go with the dice, then you have to accept that this will occur from time to time.

[Pex]

This is why point buy exists.

If you go with the dice, you are going to get unbalanced characters and random results.

Personally I prefer point buy as it grants the player the opportunity to play the character he wants, and balances the PC's against each other.

But if you go with the dice, then you have to accept that this will occur from time to time.

No you don't because you don't have to accept one player rolls low while everyone else rolls high. You just let the low roller reroll or adjust what he already has. This isn't a failure of the dice rolling system, just how it can work.

Point Buy is fine too in concept. Its particular published recommended implementation isn't by default super awesome. Better to say the particular published recommended implementation is not universally loved. I hate 5E's version and would always vote against using it in the hypothetical starting a new campaign. If 3E I would not play a warrior with anything less than 32 points. Anything lower I'm only playing a spellcaster because warriors don't work at lower amounts due to MAD. In Pathfinder I prefer 25 points, 20 points can work, 15 points paladins and monks don't exist in my personal opinion of the matter. The ironic thing for me if it was 4E no problem with the published recommended implementation at all but as I don't like 4E I wouldn't be playing.

[Malifice]

No you don't because you don't have to accept one player rolls low while everyone else rolls high. You just let the low roller reroll or adjust what he already has. This isn't a failure of the dice rolling system, just how it can work.

Point Buy is fine too in concept. Its particular published recommended implementation isn't by default super awesome. Better to say the particular published recommended implementation is not universally loved. I hate 5E's version and would always vote against using it in the hypothetical starting a new campaign. If 3E I would not play a warrior with anything less than 32 points. Anything lower I'm only playing a spellcaster because warriors don't work at lower amounts due to MAD. In Pathfinder I prefer 25 points, 20 points can work, 15 points paladins and monks don't exist in my personal opinion of the matter. The ironic thing for me if it was 4E no problem with the published recommended implementation at all but as I don't like 4E I wouldn't be playing.

So why randomize the results if you dont want random results?

[squab]

So why randomize the results if you dont want random results?

I agree with most of what Pex said. Using point buy or pre-exsting arrays you simply end up with much less variety in arrays because people pick the best one or point buy similar arrays to min/max the most. Rolling for stats means you might end up with a low score somewhere. It ultimately offers more variety in what people end up with.

I'm very much in favor of rolling for stats, and also very much in favor of helping a person who rolled low. Bump one of the scores to an 18, let him reroll till he gets something of a similar power level to other players, give him some other sort of boon - there are options, you don't have to stick with a low array.

[Sjappo]

I don't think I've ever played with a DM that would make you keep a character you completely didn't see a way to play and make fun. I do understand what some of you are saying. I wouldn't have a great time in a bicycle race with Lance Armstrong, even un-juiced. It would be a fair race, but not equal and I wouldn't stand a chance unless he got hit by a truck or something.
I would argue the race was hardly fair. Armstrong has an unfair advantage due to his training. It is fair from a rules and legitimate standpoint. But it is not free from bias, hence unfair.

I'll leave now :mitd:

[coredump]

People keep acting like an 18 makes you so much better than having a 14. It just doesn't make that much of a difference. Particularly once you start factoring in character classes and what options you are picking.

[mephnick]

I still don't get the concept of modifying stat rolls so much that it ends up mimicking point buy in the end anyway. If rolling is so broken you have to add re-rolls, minimum thresholds, maximum thresholds, shared arrays, a bonus DM array, different dice systems, fallback point-buy and extra bonuses....why are you using it? Yet these people refuse to use point-buy because it's not traditional or doesn't feel natural? Really?

[D.U.P.A.]

I agree with most of what Pex said. Using point buy or pre-exsting arrays you simply end up with much less variety in arrays because people pick the best one or point buy similar arrays to min/max the most. Rolling for stats means you might end up with a low score somewhere. It ultimately offers more variety in what people end up with.

I'm very much in favor of rolling for stats, and also very much in favor of helping a person who rolled low. Bump one of the scores to an 18, let him reroll till he gets something of a similar power level to other players, give him some other sort of boon - there are options, you don't have to stick with a low array.

Why would be there no variety? Often people have some crazy ideas and do some weird build, which is far from optimal, but still viable. Especially if multiclassing.

Rolling is for games like Call of Cthulhu, where you do not use stats that much as in Dungeons&Dragons, they affect skills, hp, sanity and specific rolls, but those are measured in percents and those few % hardly matter. There you also do not level and gain new features, hp, stats and so on, only some changes in skills and maybe sanity recovery. The adventures there are also much shorter, you can die quickly no matter your stats are, you seldom roll dice there unlike D&D, where you roll it all the time. Basically for short games where can die quickly, rolling for stats makes sense, but for longer campaign it is very annoying.

[Hawkstar]

You have exactly one chance to make your character.

If you only have one chance to make your character in the game, you don't clearly need good stats.

Character death is a thing. As is the grand Re-Roll.

I guess it's easier to put it as:
Point Buy is good for games where you expect the players to have very few characters for the entire game, and fits well with more Character Drama games.

Rolled Stats (Especially if it's "In Order") works for the more traditional way of playing D&D (Which 5e supports VERY well with its random Personality, Bond, Trait, Flaw, Trinket tables to give them fluff, and quick character creation), where character lives can be quick. Get a set of bad rolls? Congratulations, you've been challenged to Hard Mode. Gaining levels will give you even greater prestige! Got lucky rolls at the beginning? Don't get too cocky - you're NOT invincible, and you will bemoan your loss of those great rolls, but that's how they fall. The dice give, and they take away.

Frankly, I think 5e needs earlier-edition random monster tables (No, not 3e's garbage attempt. Earlier), instead of having encounters be entirely be at the whims of the DM.

[Sjappo]

If you only have one chance to make your character in the game, you don't clearly need good stats.

Character death is a thing. As is the grand Re-Roll.

I guess it's easier to put it as:
Point Buy is good for games where you expect the players to have very few characters for the entire game, and fits well with more Character Drama games.

Rolled Stats (Especially if it's "In Order") works for the more traditional way of playing D&D (Which 5e supports VERY well with its random Personality, Bond, Trait, Flaw, Trinket tables to give them fluff, and quick character creation), where character lives can be quick. Get a set of bad rolls? Congratulations, you've been challenged to Hard Mode. Gaining levels will give you even greater prestige! Got lucky rolls at the beginning? Don't get too cocky - you're NOT invincible, and you will bemoan your loss of those great rolls, but that's how they fall. The dice give, and they take away.

Frankly, I think 5e needs earlier-edition random monster tables (No, not 3e's garbage attempt. Earlier), instead of having encounters be entirely be at the whims of the DM.
Good point. I didn't factor that kind of play. In that case rolling good or bad is not that important. You'll roll better next time. Or not.

The grand reroll you mentioned is a good mechanism to compensate for a lousy roll when creating a character for a long running campaign.

Just FYI, most, if not all, our campaigns run for at least a year. Mostly because we play dead slow. So that may taint my perspective a bit. We play with a fixed array mostly, but I miss the randomness of the rolled stats somewhat. The lousy rolls, not so much.

[Slipperychicken]

I advocate taking a rule from 3.5 to deal with this. Roll 4d6b3 as normal, but you get to reroll if all the stats are lower than 15 and/or the sum of the modifiers is less than 3. If the reroll stats are still too low, you keep rerolling until you get stats which don't trigger a reroll. That still allows considerable variation, but you're basically guaranteed to have viable stats. This was actually the default in 3.5, and I'm not sure why it wasn't carried over to 5e.

[Pex]

So why randomize the results if you dont want random results?


You still get random results. You just don't have to be slave to the inherent luck factor of poor results of a mathematically unplayable character or mathematically inferior to a significant degree of everyone else.



People keep acting like an 18 makes you so much better than having a 14. It just doesn't make that much of a difference. Particularly once you start factoring in character classes and what options you are picking.

It is better and does make a difference. +2 to whatever is 10% chance more of success which matters over the course of the game as you roll lots of dice during that time. The math part of the game is important. Players are not wrong for liking to have an 18. I don't demand an 18 as long you don't forbid them.

[Easy_Lee]

You still get random results. You just don't have to be slave to the inherent luck factor of poor results of a mathematically unplayable character or mathematically inferior to a significant degree of everyone else.




It is better and does make a difference. +2 to whatever is 10% chance more of success which matters over the course of the game as you roll lots of dice during that time. The math part of the game is important. Players are not wrong for liking to have an 18. I don't demand an 18 as long you don't forbid them.

To add to this, the higher the minimum number for success, the more +1 matters. Let's say you need to roll a 15 in order to accomplish a thing. +1 means you need to roll a 14, and has increased your chance of success from 30% to 35%, a 16.7% increase in the likelihood of success (35/30-1). In an extreme case, where you needed a 20, now you need a 19, thus doubling your chance of success. Only at the lowest rung, needing to roll a 2, is a +1 merely a 5% increase in the likelihood of success.

And 5% still matters.

[Safety Sword]

The only fair way to make characters is a standard array (perhaps not THE standard array, if you like) so everyone uses the same numbers or point buy so everyone has the same resources to build from.

I agree that rolling and randomness is for playing the game at the table, but not for getting ready to play.

[Sjappo]

The only fair way to make characters is a standard array (perhaps not THE standard array, if you like) so everyone uses the same numbers or point buy so everyone has the same resources to build from.

I agree that rolling and randomness is for playing the game at the table, but not for getting ready to play.

No it's not. Standard array and point buy are two. Rolling a number of arrays and have the players choose one is an other. Having the players pick their own stats is a forth. And there probably are more.

Incidentally, having the players pick their own stats made for some interesting characters. I expected some all high stat characters but wound up with a CHA4, CON4 elven wizard, the badly burnt lone survivor of a house fire for example. This was in 2nd edition so stats did matter a lot less than in 3E and up.

[Safety Sword]

No it's not. Standard array and point buy are two. Rolling a number of arrays and have the players choose one is an other. Having the players pick their own stats is a forth. And there probably are more.

Incidentally, having the players pick their own stats made for some interesting characters. I expected some all high stat characters but wound up with a CHA4, CON4 elven wizard, the badly burnt lone survivor of a house fire for example. This was in 2nd edition so stats did matter a lot less than in 3E and up.

Whether you roll them or choose them, all of the characters using the same number set to create their characters is a standard array.

Like I said above, if you roll them they're just not THE standard array.

Basically what I'm saying is that the characters have to have the same (non-random) resources at the start of the process to make it fair.

[Sjappo]

Whether you roll them or choose them, all of the characters using the same number set to create their characters is a standard array.

Like I said above, if you roll them they're just not THE standard array.

Basically what I'm saying is that the characters have to have the same (non-random) resources at the start of the process to make it fair.
If you create 4 or 5 random arrays and let the players choose, chances are not all players will wind op with the same array. Unless you count the random set of 4 arrays as one array. I'd say that 4 random sets is fundamentally different to one none random set. But that's just how one defines "standard array".

But I agree. For the character creation process to be fair all players need to have the same opportunity to make any character he or she wants (within the framework of the other character creation rules). And not be arbitrarily blocked from some options due to the bad luck.

[Quild]

We did this way: roll for 7 stats and drop the lowest one, each stat is rolled with 4d6 (drop lowest).
Then, if a player rolls bad, he can discard his results and use 27 point buy.

Doing that way, without rerolling the 1s, you have 1,62% chances to roll a 18 on each roll.

That gives you 89,194% chances to roll none on 7 rolls and 10,284% chance to roll one 18 on 7 rolls.
You also have 0,508% chances to roll two 18s on 7 rolls and 0,0142% chances to roll 3 or more.

Assuming the players only needed one natural 18 and got the other two from racial traits (I usually chose my race for it's racial traits that goes with the character I want and would put the 18s where they can go higher, but let assume they did not), they still need high rolls on the two other stats that are to be enhanced.
Or maybe they started mid-level and have 1 or 2 additional attributes points.

At this rate, it's more likely that one player was incredibly unlucky rather than 3 lucky players.

I don't see how it would be bad DM-ing.
DM can chose to have that player find a manual if he wants to balance the team.

[GiantOctopodes]

If enough tables roll enough characters, sooner or later there will be a campaign where one character is 6 18's and another is 6 3's. Depending on the number of players at a typical table it may require quite a few campaign as the odds of all 18's are small (1 in 216 to the sixth power) while the odds of all 3's are smaller (1 in 1296 to the sixth power).

That is fair by the definition of "everyone had an equal chance". It is not fair in the sense of "for the next several months or years, those two players will be equal participants in the campaign".

If you want the second definition of fair, then some other method other than independant random selection of ability scores must be used. If you don't care about the second criterion, then random generation is just fine.

101,559,956,668,416

1 in 101 trillion. If we accept that there are a billion D&D players who regularly create characters, and they create 100 per year, that leaves us with 100 billion characters per year, in which case D&D would have to be around for centuries, potentially a millenia or more, before such a character is actually likely to be rolled at a table. Which is to say that it is just as likely they are not rolled, and another millenia passes without that event occurring. Eventually, the opportunities for the event to occur will expire. I just wanted to point out that this is obviously severely inflated in every way as well, not the least of which is the assumption that the character generation methods remain the same. It's the same as the statement about a bunch of monkeys reproducing the works of Shakespeare. Certainly, such an event *could* occur, but not before the likely heat death of the universe.

So no, realistically that is not a concern in my opinion, as enough tables are unlikely to be rolled upon in the timespan of D&D existing with this character generation method for that to actually occur. Certainly rolling allows for a wide range of possibilities and there exists the potential for disparity between characters at a table as a result. However, such disparities are mitigated by the rolling method used in the first place, by alternate ability score generation systems in the second place, and by the idea that some DMs, at least, will step in and take corrective action if too great a disparity exists within their campaign, in some form or another.

Edit: I should point out that number is just for the 6 18s. The 6 3s is 1 in 4,738,381,338,321,616,896. The chance of both of them occurring at the same table? Statistically, 0. Everyone on the planet could be involved in 10 person D&D campaigns, multiple of them even, generating a new character every day, and it still wouldn't happen before the sun expanded and consumed the earth.

[Sjappo]

101,559,956,668,416

1 in 101 trillion. If we accept that there are a billion D&D players who regularly create characters, and they create 100 per year, that leaves us with 100 billion characters per year, in which case D&D would have to be around for centuries, potentially a millenia or more, before such a character is actually likely to be rolled at a table. Which is to say that it is just as likely they are not rolled, and another millenia passes without that event occurring. Eventually, the opportunities for the event to occur will expire. I just wanted to point out that this is obviously severely inflated in every way as well, not the least of which is the assumption that the character generation methods remain the same. It's the same as the statement about a bunch of monkeys reproducing the works of Shakespeare. Certainly, such an event *could* occur, but not before the likely heat death of the universe.

So no, realistically that is not a concern in my opinion, as enough tables are unlikely to be rolled upon in the timespan of D&D existing with this character generation method for that to actually occur. Certainly rolling allows for a wide range of possibilities and there exists the potential for disparity between characters at a table as a result. However, such disparities are mitigated by the rolling method used in the first place, by alternate ability score generation systems in the second place, and by the idea that some DMs, at least, will step in and take corrective action if too great a disparity exists within their campaign, in some form or another.

Edit: I should point out that number is just for the 6 18s. The 6 3s is 1 in 4,738,381,338,321,616,896. The chance of both of them occurring at the same table? Statistically, 0. Everyone on the planet could be involved in 10 person D&D campaigns, multiple of them even, generating a new character every day, and it still wouldn't happen before the sun expanded and consumed the earth.
Math rules

[KorvinStarmast]

Math rules There is more to the RPG called D & D than math.

A lot more.

[Sjappo]

There is more to the RPG called D & D than math.

A lot more.
Sure. But when someone compares the chance of getting straight 18's while using 4d6 drop lowest with the life expectancy of the sun I get all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Quild]

101,559,956,668,416

There's something I don't understand. Shining Wraith said there was 1 chance over 216 to have a stat at 18, while there was 1 chance on 1296 to have a stat at 3.

I assume he intended his calculation as "roll 4 dice, ditch the lowest". You need only three 6s to have 18, but you need a 1 on each die to have 3.

Thus, you can have 1 6 6 6, 6 1 6 6, 6 6 1 6 or 6 6 6 1, it still works for a 18.
Which gives you four combinations with the "fourth" die being something else than a 6 and 1 combination with the four die being a six.
Which makes 21 rolls that gives you three 6s or more, over 1296 possible rolls. And only 1 roll that gives you four 1.
21/1296 = 61,7142857142857 = 1,62037037037037%

Now, this method of rolling character stats usually goes with "roll 7 times, ditch the lowest".
You can have 7 combinations with one stat not being a 18 and one with every 18.
Your chances to have six (or more) 18s, are :
[(1/61,71...)^6*(1-1/61,71...)^1]*7+(1/61,71...)^7*1

Which doesn't make a lot, but still 1 chance over 8 003 691 647.
Almost 14 time more likely than your calculation.
Also, that would lower the chances of having a 3 on each stat since you need to roll 7 times 1, 1, 1, 1


Related page of webcomic : http://alignment.thecomicseries.com/comics/89/

[Malifice]

I agree with most of what Pex said. Using point buy or pre-exsting arrays you simply end up with much less variety in arrays because people pick the best one or point buy similar arrays to min/max the most. Rolling for stats means you might end up with a low score somewhere. It ultimately offers more variety in what people end up with.

I'm very much in favor of rolling for stats, and also very much in favor of helping a person who rolled low. Bump one of the scores to an 18, let him reroll till he gets something of a similar power level to other players, give him some other sort of boon - there are options, you don't have to stick with a low array.

As an alternative, allocate numbers (1-6) for each stat in the standard array.

Then roll against each stat in order (re-rolling duplicates). Assign the array stat that corresponds to that number rolled to that stat.

After you're done, allow the PC to exchange one star for one other stat.

Balance and variety maintained.

[GiantOctopodes]

There's something I don't understand. Shining Wraith said there was 1 chance over 216 to have a stat at 18, while there was 1 chance on 1296 to have a stat at 3.

I assume he intended his calculation as "roll 4 dice, ditch the lowest". You need only three 6s to have 18, but you need a 1 on each die to have 3.

Thus, you can have 1 6 6 6, 6 1 6 6, 6 6 1 6 or 6 6 6 1, it still works for a 18.
Which gives you four combinations with the "fourth" die being something else than a 6 and 1 combination with the four die being a six.
Which makes 21 rolls that gives you three 6s or more, over 1296 possible rolls. And only 1 roll that gives you four 1.
21/1296 = 61,7142857142857 = 1,62037037037037%

Now, this method of rolling character stats usually goes with "roll 7 times, ditch the lowest".
You can have 7 combinations with one stat not being a 18 and one with every 18.
Your chances to have six (or more) 18s, are :
[(1/61,71...)^6*(1-1/61,71...)^1]*7+(1/61,71...)^7*1

Which doesn't make a lot, but still 1 chance over 8 003 691 647.
Almost 14 time more likely than your calculation.
Also, that would lower the chances of having a 3 on each stat since you need to roll 7 times 1, 1, 1, 1


Related page of webcomic : http://alignment.thecomicseries.com/comics/89/

Since the order of the dice don't matter, he was almost certainly calculating using 3 dice being 18s and 1 being anything, or 1/6*1/6*1/6*6/6 = 6/1296, or 1/216. Your numbers are correct, it is indeed 21/1296, I was just rolling with his numbers. Now your rolling 7 times, ditch the lowest plays into my point, because that's not in the rules. Rolling 4 times using 4d6 drop lowest is the standard recommended method used by the PHB, but if even amongst those who play the game there are disparities in how they actually roll and generate stats, it is very unlikely the number of events will occur necessary to obtain those results. Your method would increase still further the chances of obtaining the all 18s character (still not likely enough for it to ever occur at a table where those rules are in play), as it artificially raises the stats characters have, while still further decreasing the chance of the all 3s characters occurring. The chances of them occurring at the same table remains a statistical impossibility.

Now in terms of the OP's questions, the characters did not get those stats through rolling, at least not through 4d6 drop lowest. My combinatorics are a bit rusty, so I don't feel like sorting out the actual probability of that occurring, but suffice to say, 1 character having 3 18s even after racials is still incredibly improbable (1.62% chance of rolling an 18, 4.17% chance of rolling a 17, 7.25% chance of rolling a 16. If we accept that they are unlikely to have put their 2 racial boosts into non-18 stats rather than bump their primary stat to 20 when possible, it means that you likely had 2 18s and a 16 before racial bonuses, but even without it, assuming 2 rolls "of 16 or higher" and 1 18, the chance is .02% were there only 3 stats (2/10,000 in other words). Since you only need 3 of 6 to hit those numbers it throws things off, but the point remains that having just one person attain those results would be a stroke of remarkable luck likely to never be repeated at your gaming tables. 3 characters hitting those levels in the same game means you're not using standard ability score generation methods, or there is something questionable about the results.

If using non-standard ability score generation, the chance of getting a character with at most a 14 (which is already only 4/1000) drops still further. Either way, the chance of those events having occurred through legitimate random number generation using the same methods becomes exceedingly unlikely. In short, either your one friend who rolled the at most 14 character is the unluckiest person *ever*, or the 3 people with 3 18s fudged the numbers. Were I a DM and were I to see those results, I would absolutely step in, and I would have everyone reroll ability scores, in the open with everyone watching this time. Those results would indeed affect the balance of the game and possibly the satisfaction of the players in it. No chance I would just let it ride.

[KorvinStarmast]

But when someone compares the chance of getting straight 18's while using 4d6 drop lowest with the life expectancy of the sun I get all warm and fuzzy inside. Uh oh, have you checked for radiation leaks? :smallbiggrin:

[TrollCapAmerica]

Considering that the stat array in the book is blazing hot garbage I say roll for stats. If your worried about disparity try these on

A) Reroll 1s
B) Roll two Arrays and cchoose one
C) Roll a solid across the board array and give PCs the option to use that

Ive used all these and have been using C method with one stat array for a decade now

[GiantOctopodes]

Considering that the stat array in the book is blazing hot garbage I say roll for stats. If your worried about disparity try these on

A) Reroll 1s
B) Roll two Arrays and cchoose one
C) Roll a solid across the board array and give PCs the option to use that

Ive used all these and have been using C method with one stat array for a decade now

I'll just point out that the stat array in the book is what the game is balanced upon. Anyone who runs with players who have substantially higher than normal stats may find the game is not as challenging as intended, or may end up pushing up the expected CR of monsters and encounters to compensate. This, in turn, often results in deadlier combat than expected, since players often prioritize offensive stats over defensive stats.

The stat array in the book is not garbage, it's balanced, fair, provides opportunity for growth throughout the course of the adventure, and is predicated upon the assumption that feats are optional, and that by default people are getting ability score increases, not feats, and want to be able to use them for more than increasing their dump stats. If anyone is experiencing combat where the PCs are dying left and right, or where there is no challenge to the PCs at all, and is using higher than normal stats, I encourage them to actually try out a game where all players use the standard array, I think you'll be surprised over the results.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I'll just point out that the stat array in the book is what the game is balanced upon. Anyone who runs with players who have substantially higher than normal stats may find the game is not as challenging as intended, or may end up pushing up the expected CR of monsters and encounters to compensate. This, in turn, often results in deadlier combat than expected, since players often prioritize offensive stats over defensive stats.

The stat array in the book is not garbage, it's balanced, fair, provides opportunity for growth throughout the course of the adventure, and is predicated upon the assumption that feats are optional, and that by default people are getting ability score increases, not feats, and want to be able to use them for more than increasing their dump stats. If anyone is experiencing combat where the PCs are dying left and right, or where there is no challenge to the PCs at all, and is using higher than normal stats, I encourage them to actually try out a game where all players use the standard array, I think you'll be surprised over the results.

Rolling is just as valid as the array and statistically its hard to roll as low as the default array. I admit I feel more confident in a character with better stats but overall its a +1 or +2 here and there and wont critically break game balance

[Knaight]

On rolling for stats: The fundamental issue with rolling for stats for a long term character is that you are basically making six rolls that then provide set bonuses for hundreds if not thousands of other rolls. While technically fair, in that everyone starts the same way, it throws the entire rest of the game out of whack.


Since the order of the dice don't matter, he was almost certainly calculating using 3 dice being 18s and 1 being anything, or 1/6*1/6*1/6*6/6 = 6/1296, or 1/216.

The order doesn't matter, but there being four dice does, and this models just three dice. What you have above models specifically rolling 3 sixes, then rolling something else.

[Pex]

I'll just point out that the stat array in the book is what the game is balanced upon. Anyone who runs with players who have substantially higher than normal stats may find the game is not as challenging as intended, or may end up pushing up the expected CR of monsters and encounters to compensate. This, in turn, often results in deadlier combat than expected, since players often prioritize offensive stats over defensive stats.

The stat array in the book is not garbage, it's balanced, fair, provides opportunity for growth throughout the course of the adventure, and is predicated upon the assumption that feats are optional, and that by default people are getting ability score increases, not feats, and want to be able to use them for more than increasing their dump stats. If anyone is experiencing combat where the PCs are dying left and right, or where there is no challenge to the PCs at all, and is using higher than normal stats, I encourage them to actually try out a game where all players use the standard array, I think you'll be surprised over the results.

The array is terrible but not in a vacuum. It's terrible because of 5E's saving throw system. You get worse in your saving throws as you gain levels because you never improve four of them unless you're a paladin or monk while whatever it is that makes you roll a save will increase as the levels progress to at least DC 19. Rolling for ability scores does not fix the problem. It's more an issue of 5E saving throws than the array, but the array exacerbates the problem. Rolling offers a chance for some improvement.

I also philosophically oppose the array on principle because it absolutely refuses the possibility of an 18 at first level. I do not apologize for liking to have an 18 at first level. I don't demand having one; I just loathe the outright forbiddance.

[Quild]

On rolling for stats: The fundamental issue with rolling for stats for a long term character is that you are basically making six rolls that then provide set bonuses for hundreds if not thousands of other rolls. While technically fair, in that everyone starts the same way, it throws the entire rest of the game out of whack.



The order doesn't matter, but there being four dice does, and this models just three dice. What you have above models specifically rolling 3 sixes, then rolling something else.

I haven't played D&D a lot, maybe less than 20 games, but... I see manuals as a way to balance bad rolls.
The more important roll is the one you put in CON to me. I think that's important for a meat shield, but also for a wizard/sorcerer. I'm not fond of the DM trying to avoid the caster to be hit because he would instantly die, so even if the opponents could hit the caster, they don't.

The second one would be INT, for skill points at every level.

Any other rolls isn't that important. It doesn't follow you each and every level like HP and Skill Points. Of course you want STR with your melee character for more damage and chances to hit.
Of course you want more damage with spells, more spells and stuff.
etc...

But if you can do the game until a certain point, you will find stuff that provides you what you need and balance the group.
Once the group is balanced, if you want more, it's another problem entirely. You're a munchkin.
Don't worry, I'm one myself.

[KorvinStarmast]

I also philosophically oppose the array on principle because it absolutely refuses the possibility of an 18 at first level. I do not apologize for liking to have an 18 at first level. I don't demand having one; I just loathe the outright forbiddance.On this we agree.

For those who like all players to start at the same zero point, the array offers a good enough tool for that purpose.

[Yagyujubei]

if your rolls end up bad then it's common practice to allow for standard array as a back up. it isn't unfair to the other players if the DM allows the one who rolled super poorly to have better stats that are still far worse than theirs. I personally wouldn't be able to have fun in a situation where other characters were so much more powerful than me. If you're friends then don't be ***** and give your buddy a break

[Easy_Lee]

if your rolls end up bad then it's common practice to allow for standard array as a back up. it isn't unfair to the other players if the DM allows the one who rolled super poorly to have better stats that are still far worse than theirs. I personally wouldn't be able to have fun in a situation where other characters were so much more powerful than me. If you're friends then don't be ***** and give your buddy a break

This is a good point, and I've seen it done.

It's certainly true that one can build a character who does not need high stats. Certain kinds of cleric and wizard in particular could get away with straight 12's to start. However, it's really not fair to the person who rolled low, and like Yagyujubei said, no one is going to complain if the low roller can fall back on SA.

Some would say that this takes the point away from rolling stats. It there's no risk, then why do it? While that's a fair point, I think the penalties to the low roller outweigh the thrill for the high rollers.

[Sjappo]

This is a good point, and I've seen it done.

It's certainly true that one can build a character who does not need high stats. Certain kinds of cleric and wizard in particular could get away with straight 12's to start. However, it's really not fair to the person who rolled low, and like Yagyujubei said, no one is going to complain if the low roller can fall back on SA.

Some would say that this takes the point away from rolling stats. It there's no risk, then why do it? While that's a fair point, I think the penalties to the low roller outweigh the thrill for the high rollers.
I'll answer that. If you loose the risk you keep the randomness. It might make your preferred build easier, or more difficult or open up unexpected options. I'd see that as a gain.