diced ability scores and point buy

[dread05]

Just a quick question, if my players choose to roll dice for their ability scores, should I then let them min max using the point buy system? Or have them use either the exact rolls or the stanard point buy system.

[Steampunkette]

One or the other.

[Ninja_Prawn]

"Should" is such a... strong word.

Do what you think is best for your game. I'm not a huge fan of rolled stats in general and use a 50:50 mix of point buy or standard array, but different people have different views. None of them are right 100% of the time.

From what I've seen, most people who use rolled stats allow a 'safety net' of some kind. Whether that's ignoring the rolls and going back to point buy, rolling up a second set or replacing the lowest roll is up to you.

[Cybren]

Let the dice fall were they may. Point buy and dice rolls are both great options but I wouldn't try merging them- the advantage of point buy is control while rolling the dice gives you less control but a slightly higher average value.

If you want to give them a bit more room to play, my suggestion is let them roll two arrays. Maybe even let them "trade" one of their rolls with each other.

[Mith]

My table generally does 3 sets of 4d6 drop 1, which generally ends up with at least average scores before racials in my experience. The question after that is whether you do in order or not, which will influence what class you may want to take.

[Reverse]

I recommend either rolled or buy and to not incorporate some sort of hybrid. If you want to encourage higher stats have more liberal rules for them, ie a higher point bank or more rolls or dice.
We are talking about heros here.
All that said 5e seems like a point buy system. The balance of ASI and feats is important considering the ability cap and how powerful feats are.

[darkrose50]

[1.0] Attribute Determination
[1.1] Roll 4D6 + 4D4, keep the best three dice for each attribute in order (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Dexterity)
[1.2] replace one attribute with a 15

http://anydice.com/program/78e7

Perhaps cap starting attributes to 16 (after adjustment). I would provide some sort of advantage for the trade:

Perhaps: gold, magical item(s), exquisite piece of equipment, unusually smart dog companion, attribute re-roll for the lowest attribute in the party, contact, treasure map, royal-blood, and so on.

Perhaps a special trait connected to the attribute.

[Segev]

I am fond of what I call the "matrix method." You roll up six columns of six numbers (using 4d6 drop low), in order. Then you choose the row, column, or diagonal you like the best. Once you've chosen the six numbers you'll use in this fashion, you may re-arrange those numbers to your stats as you see fit.

It leads to a relatively high average result, but tends to still have enough variance to be interesting. And sometimes the choices are painful - do you go for that one with the three 15s and nothing below 12, or do you take the 7 and 8 to get the 2 18s?

[Reverse]

I am fond of what I call the "matrix method." You roll up six columns of six numbers (using 4d6 drop low), in order. Then you choose the row, column, or diagonal you like the best. Once you've chosen the six numbers you'll use in this fashion, you may re-arrange those numbers to your stats as you see fit.

It leads to a relatively high average result, but tends to still have enough variance to be interesting. And sometimes the choices are painful - do you go for that one with the three 15s and nothing below 12, or do you take the 7 and 8 to get the 2 18s?


I like it, I like it alot.

[Randomthom]

I was intrigued by your matrix method so I created it in excel (yup, I'm bored at work!).

I wanted to compare it to point-buy which doesn't exactly work in 5e because the point-buy only goes from 8-15 so I extended the point-buy system to do 5-18 (as I originally did this spreadsheet for PF). This does introduce negative points for scores below 8.

Here is an example array;
13 16 15 16 11 17 | 52
13 14 15 11 15 9 | 34
13 12 9 13 12 17 | 32
14 16 15 17 17 15 | 62
10 13 13 11 11 12 | 22
12 17 12 14 12 6 | 30
------------------
28 51 37 42 36 38


The numbers on the end of each row/column are the point-buy scores. As you can see from this, most of them came in above the 27-point normal allowance.
You are effectively rolling twelve sets of stats and taking the best which in this case is 14, 16, 15, 17, 17, 15.

One great suggestion I heard is for everyone around the table to roll one set of stats each but then they are pooled so anyone can choose any set that was rolled. It is fair because everyone gets the same (unless they choose a different set) and it doesn't create too many to create superheroes but also creates enough that you shouldn't end up with a completely pathetic stat array.

[Segev]

I was intrigued by your matrix method so I created it in excel (yup, I'm bored at work!).

I wanted to compare it to point-buy which doesn't exactly work in 5e because the point-buy only goes from 8-15 so I extended the point-buy system to do 5-18 (as I originally did this spreadsheet for PF). This does introduce negative points for scores below 8.

Here is an example array;
13 16 15 16 11 17 | 52
13 14 15 11 15 9 | 34
13 12 9 13 12 17 | 32
14 16 15 17 17 15 | 62
10 13 13 11 11 12 | 22
12 17 12 14 12 6 | 30
------------------
28 51 37 42 36 38


The numbers on the end of each row/column are the point-buy scores. As you can see from this, most of them came in above the 27-point normal allowance.
You are effectively rolling twelve sets of stats and taking the best which in this case is 14, 16, 15, 17, 17, 15.Yeah, it will result in higher-than-normal stat lines. I will point out that you missed the diagonals, and that this particular matrix is a bit unusual in my experience because it does have one line that is really, truly, just plain better than the others.

Total point-based score is useful, but a statline of all 15s might be inferior, for some builds, to one that has a bunch of 10s and 12s but 1-2 18s. But I suspect the second would have a lower point cost (haven't done the math, myself).


One great suggestion I heard is for everyone around the table to roll one set of stats each but then they are pooled so anyone can choose any set that was rolled. It is fair because everyone gets the same (unless they choose a different set) and it doesn't create too many to create superheroes but also creates enough that you shouldn't end up with a completely pathetic stat array.
This is also an interesting option, yes.

[JellyPooga]

I am fond of what I call the "matrix method." You roll up six columns of six numbers (using 4d6 drop low), in order. Then you choose the row, column, or diagonal you like the best. Once you've chosen the six numbers you'll use in this fashion, you may re-arrange those numbers to your stats as you see fit.

It leads to a relatively high average result, but tends to still have enough variance to be interesting. And sometimes the choices are painful - do you go for that one with the three 15s and nothing below 12, or do you take the 7 and 8 to get the 2 18s?

I've been using this for a long time and introduced it to new groups who seemed to like it. I find, however, that 4d6b3 tends to come out a little strong. You're effectively rolling 14 "sets" of stats...which is a lot. I usually insist that if using the "matrix method" (which is also what I call it, strangely enough) that players use straight 3d6 (old-school style). It still produces enough useable arrays to give a decent selection, but it rarely produces "super stats" like the 62pt line Randomthom generated above.

[gullveig]

For rolled stats, I prefer 3+3d4 instead of 3d6... I keeps the average but you don't get stats so high or low. (best 15, worst 6)
Works better with bounded accuracy and gritty realism in my opinion.

For those who understand statistics.

3d6:
Average value = 10.5
Spread = 2.95803989155
Mean deviation = 2.41666666667

3+3d4:
Average value = 10.5
Spread = 1.9364916731
Mean deviation = 1.59375

Source: http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp

3d6:

sum 3d6

3+3d4:

3 + sum 3d4

[Mjolnirbear]

I prefer a point buy, but for MAD characters it is painful. So I use the current 8-15 before radials, and use 33 points. I may be tweaking this.

Rolled stats can get you great scores; if you want to stay with 18s it's the only way to get it. But too many times I was the guy who rolled nothing but 12s, and it grated to see all those other people with three 18s.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, my table uses the group pool idea. Everyone rolls a set, and the group votes for the one everyone uses.

One thing I'm considering is allowing players to take the set and then modify it to suit their character. Drop points from up to two attributes to raise points in the same number of attributes.

So, if the set was 11,13,13,15,17,18 - one player may opt to drop the 11 to 10 and raise the 17 to 18, and another might opt to drop both 13s to 9s and raise the 17 to 18 and the 11 to 18.

Just allows for more variety while leaving the overall straight point value (actual sum of the stats) the same across the board.

[Laserlight]

We used the Matrix method for 4e and found it effectively increased our character's accuracy, saves, etc by one level.

For my current campaign, I told the players they could roll 4d6drop1 and then decide whether they wanted to keep that or revert to point buy. I believe we now have two characters with rolled stats and two with points.

I also pointed out to them that low rolls are as important to a character, and as fun, as high rolls.



Back in 1982, the DM said "roll four dice, keep the best three." I rolled 1 1 2 4 ... and dropped the 4.

So my dwarf fighter Grog had an INT 4--slightly less than his pet wardog--and an active vocabulary of five words: Grog, Dog, Orc, Beer, and Gold. He could recognize a few other words, but if he looked around the corner and said "Orc!", you weren't sure whether it was one orc or fifty. Or fifty ogre magi.

On one celebrated occasion, Grog was first into a room and found a sword lying on the floor. He picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and chucked it over his shoulder. Fortunately the rest of the party got out of the way, so the sword hit the floor.

Hearing the "clang!" behind him, Grog spun around, weapon at the ready. Behold, there was a sword on the floor. Grog picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and chucked it over his shoulder.

Upon hearing a metallic "clang!" behind him, Grog spun around, ready for a fight, but there was nothing there--except a sword lying on the floor. Grog picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and...the cleric hastily said "Grog, give the sword to me." Otherwise, he might be there yet.

[JellyPooga]

One thing I'm considering is allowing players to take the set and then modify it to suit their character. Drop points from up to two attributes to raise points in the same number of attributes.

I'm not a fan of this method on the whole, but I'd suggest a 2:1 trade system for those that want to alter stats. It limits the scope of min-maxing, otherwise you'll be likely to find (group depending, of course) that almost everyone will have at least one, if not two or more 18's, even if an 18 wasn't rolled. Depending on what style of game you prefer, this may or may not suit.

e.g. voted for stats: 11,13,13,15,17,18
1:1 Method
18,18,18,17,8,8
2:1 Method
18,17,17,15,9,7

Same min-maxer, except the latter is a little less...cheese-a-riffic

[Mara]

Rolling for stats is of the devil. All it means that you want higher stats than point buy with none of the built in balance.

[Safety Sword]

Standard array, every time, all the time.

That's not to say it's the same array every time, just that everyone uses the same set to start off.

[RickAllison]

Rolling for stats is of the devil. All it means that you want higher stats than point buy with none of the built in balance.

Or people who want randomization of stats. Or new people who are using what the creators recommended. Or people who want to hearken back the days of old (3d6!). Or any other variety of reasons. And yes, sometimes they want higher stats, but balance can work its way in. One of my favorite character concepts was a sorcerer who became extremely lazy because of how easily he could either convince others to do his work for him, or do it by magic. Charisma 18, Strength 4. Strength skill checks had a decent chance of going negative.

[Mara]

Or people who want randomization of stats. Or new people who are using what the creators recommended. Or people who want to hearken back the days of old (3d6!). Or any other variety of reasons. And yes, sometimes they want higher stats, but balance can work its way in. One of my favorite character concepts was a sorcerer who became extremely lazy because of how easily he could either convince others to do his work for him, or do it by magic. Charisma 18, Strength 4. Strength skill checks had a decent chance of going negative.

Those are just reasons the devil tricks you into thinking you want rolled stats. In reality you just want bigger numbers than point buy with none of the built in balance.

[CaptAl]

Back in 1982, the DM said "roll four dice, keep the best three." I rolled 1 1 2 4 ... and dropped the 4.

So my dwarf fighter Grog had an INT 4--slightly less than his pet wardog--and an active vocabulary of five words: Grog, Dog, Orc, Beer, and Gold. He could recognize a few other words, but if he looked around the corner and said "Orc!", you weren't sure whether it was one orc or fifty. Or fifty ogre magi.

On one celebrated occasion, Grog was first into a room and found a sword lying on the floor. He picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and chucked it over his shoulder. Fortunately the rest of the party got out of the way, so the sword hit the floor.

Hearing the "clang!" behind him, Grog spun around, weapon at the ready. Behold, there was a sword on the floor. Grog picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and chucked it over his shoulder.

Upon hearing a metallic "clang!" behind him, Grog spun around, ready for a fight, but there was nothing there--except a sword lying on the floor. Grog picked it up, decided it wasn't interesting, and...the cleric hastily said "Grog, give the sword to me." Otherwise, he might be there yet.

Fabulous. Grog has been elevated to Hero status and will make an appearance in my next game.

[RickAllison]

Those are just reasons the devil tricks you into thinking you want rolled stats. In reality you just want bigger numbers than point buy with none of the built in balance.

Really? My rolling was 4/13/13/12/11/17. In points, that would be -4/5/5/4/3/15. That's 28 points, just higher than point-buy. If i did point-buy, I would be in effectively the same situation, except the ASIs would be going to my primary stat instead of my secondary. Works for me, I trade short-term damage for short-term fragility, and I have twice the carrying capacity.

The biggest thing I see about the two methods is concept first (point-buy) vs. stats first (rolling), and there are legitimate arguments for both. Point-buy is safe, letting players create characters that are constructed exactly as they wish (at the cost of being probably weaker than a rolled character), whereas rolling challenges you to take what the dice hand out and make of it what you will.

[Safety Sword]

Really? My rolling was 4/13/13/12/11/17. In points, that would be -4/5/5/4/3/15. That's 28 points, just higher than point-buy. If i did point-buy, I would be in effectively the same situation, except the ASIs would be going to my primary stat instead of my secondary. Works for me, I trade short-term damage for short-term fragility, and I have twice the carrying capacity.

The biggest thing I see about the two methods is concept first (point-buy) vs. stats first (rolling), and there are legitimate arguments for both. Point-buy is safe, letting players create characters that are constructed exactly as they wish (at the cost of being probably weaker than a rolled character), whereas rolling challenges you to take what the dice hand out and make of it what you will.

I like random in my game, not in my character before I start my game.

Personal choice is just that.

[RickAllison]

I like random in my game, not in my character before I start my game.

Personal choice is just that.

That's your preference, and it's just fine. Some like the challenge of building a character based on what they roll. That's fine as well. What's not fine is sneering at an entire sub-spectrum of gamers by declaring their preference the work of the devil.

EDIT: Undue comments edited out.

[Pex]

Have everyone use Point Buy or everyone use Dice Rolling. Using both could cause problems with the math of the game and metagame.

If Point Buy isn't enough for you, increase the point value and allow for purchasing of scores above 15. You don't have to be slaved to what the book says.

If the inherent luck factor of Dice Rolling is a problem, allow for rerolls, a choice among sets of roll, or fine-tune adjust rolls by adding one or two to one or two stats. You don't have to be slaved to the first array rolled.

[CaptAl]

That is either trolling, or being an ettin's anus.

Could it be an Ettin/Troll hybrid?

[HoarsHalberd]

Would defeat my point to properly quote.

I'd advise editing your comments, mods (and indeed the rules) come down harder on people who may have been trolled and directly insult the person trolling them than people who are apparently trolling/baiting. Though in this case I -think- Mara was being tongue in cheek with their choice of words, even if the constant implications of badwrongfun that are made by the pro 1 method crowd every time stat generation is brought up is annoying.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, my table uses the group pool idea. Everyone rolls a set, and the group votes for the one everyone uses.

One thing I'm considering is allowing players to take the set and then modify it to suit their character. Drop points from up to two attributes to raise points in the same number of attributes.

So, if the set was 11,13,13,15,17,18 - one player may opt to drop the 11 to 10 and raise the 17 to 18, and another might opt to drop both 13s to 9s and raise the 17 to 18 and the 11 to 18.

Just allows for more variety while leaving the overall straight point value (actual sum of the stats) the same across the board.

Something to consider:

In 5E, your prime ability score controls so many things that the sum of the stats is less interesting than the value of the highest stat. Multiple high stats are great for MAD classes, but as long as you have at least one great stat you can still excel as a SAD class (Rogue, Wizard, Bardlock, etc.). That's why rolled stats are so much better than point buy, and why vanilla humans are so meh. From a powergaming standpoint, if you roll 10, 10, 10, 9, 8, 18, that is still a much more effective build than 12, 12, 12, 13, 11, 14. At the end of the day, the guy with 18 is going to have two more feats to play with than the 14 guy, and early on he is going to be a more effective Sharpshooter/warlock/Counterspeller/whatever.

I think you realize this because all of your examples involve someone dropping a tertiary stat in order to boost a primary stat to 18. Just as long as you realize that this is exactly what is going to happen most of the time, which means characters at your table are about to become a little more samey and 18s will no longer be special. If you realize this and want it, then go ahead.

====================================


Those are just reasons the devil tricks you into thinking you want rolled stats. In reality you just want bigger numbers than point buy with none of the built in balance.

Right. That is why no one ever, ever plays 5E with stats rolled on 3d6--because they want bigger numbers.

[Safety Sword]

That's your preference, and it's just fine. Some like the challenge of building a character based on what they roll. That's fine as well. What's not fine is sneering at an entire sub-spectrum of gamers by declaring their preference the work of the devil. That is either trolling, or being an ettin's anus.

Maybe direct that at the person who said it?

If we're at the point where we can't even say what we personally prefer even when prefacing it as such, we should all turn off our internet box transmission machines.

[RickAllison]

Maybe direct that at the person who said it?

If we're at the point where we can't even say what we personally prefer even when prefacing it as such, we should all turn off our internet box transmission machines.

It was directed at the person who said it. It was not him, nor did I imply it was him. I assumed that by directly using the person's terminology, all who had read the last few comments would know who it was directed toward. The other person never used any terminology related to the devil (thus, it would have been rather pointless to call him out on such...).

[Sigreid]

Rolling for stats is of the devil. All it means that you want higher stats than point buy with none of the built in balance.

For some of us it means we like a little randomness to what we play. Believe it or not, a character with a high stat of 12 and most below 10 can be a bunch of fun to play. It adds a whole new dimension of challenge.

Edit: To put it another way, I like to draw the character out of the rolls instead of having a solid plan going in. It's fun for me.

[bardo]

Never heard of the matrix system before, really like the idea. Also never heard of pooling all the rolled stats and letting each player pick any set, really like this one too Thanks for both ideas!

The natural next step is to combine them, have everybody roll a matrix together and everybody chooses from the same matrix.

I usually make players take the stats in-order as rolled (or in this case, as shown on the matrix), and allow for exactly 1 swap.

Looking forward to starting a new game to give these ideas a try.

Bardo.

[MaxWilson]

Never heard of the matrix system before, really like the idea. Also never heard of pooling all the rolled stats and letting each player pick any set, really like this one too Thanks for both ideas!

The natural next step is to combine them, have everybody roll a matrix together and everybody chooses from the same matrix.

How about if six people each roll a 6x6 matrix of 3d6 and you combine to form a 6x6x6 cube, then pick a row/diagonal from that cube, then create a character with ability scores in order from that cube?

Or even better, make a 6x6x6x6 tesseract, and you have to make a six-man party from one of the 6x6 planes of the tesseract. No two PCs are allowed to use the same row within the plane but they can overlap individual values.

[RickAllison]

How about if six people each roll a 6x6 matrix of 3d6 and you combine to form a 6x6x6 cube, then pick a row/diagonal from that cube, then create a character with ability scores in order from that cube?

Or even better, make a 6x6x6x6 tesseract, and you have to make a six-man party from one of the 6x6 planes of the tesseract. No two PCs are allowed to use the same row within the plane but they can overlap individual values.

I know that's supposed to be sarcastic, but it actually sounds kind of awesome.

[Nicodiemus]

I use the Fibonacci sequence beginning at the number 3 to create the most symmetrical character possible every time. And I think what Mara meant to say is that point buying, like foozball, is the Debil, Bobby Boucher. Man! Y'all need to get the chip offa yer shoulder and watch you some Waterboy up in hea.

[Mara]

I use the Fibonacci sequence beginning at the number 3 to create the most symmetrical character possible every time. And I think what Mara meant to say is that point buying, like foozball, is the Debil, Bobby Boucher. Man! Y'all need to get the chip offa yer shoulder and watch you some Waterboy up in hea.

Clearly those attributing things to satan should be taken with the up-most seriousness.

[gullveig]

Rolling for stats is of the devil. All it means that you want higher stats than point buy with none of the built in balance.

That is why I use 3+3d4 instead of 3d6...

[gameogre]

[QUOTE=RickAllison;20377381]Or people who want randomization of stats. Or new people who are using what the creators recommended. Or people who want to hearken back the days of old (3d6!).QUOTE]

In my experience people who like random mostly do just want higher numbers. However 3D6 is a different story. I have NEVER known a player to want to roll 3D6 for stats. 4D6 and drop the lowest one and even then if they roll #$#$ you can bet they will be unhappy with that character and banging on my door saying" Can I reroll?"

If people want random stats 3D6 would indeed work wonderfully! I would happily grant every player out there 3D6 arranged and consider the matter settled.

But I know of none of my players that would be happy with 3D6 unless they truly rolled some rare high stats.

Nope, it would be something like 4D6 reroll 1's and maybe a couple of sets. Because what they are going for is high stats not randomness.

If your players are different. Hug them and cherish them and lie to other DM's about them and never again post on these boards about them because you my friend have managed to land the magical mythical players we have all heard tales about and even now there is probably a longship full of Viking DM's rowing for your shores!

[JellyPooga]

But I know of none of my players that would be happy with 3D6 unless they truly rolled some rare high stats.

I do know a guy that protests vehemently at point buy, 4d6b3 and other such "foils" to truly random stats because he likes those random stats even, no, especially when they're bad. His argument is that it's not a characters stats that make him heroic, it's his deeds and how much more heroic is a character if he starts off as an underdog?

Or something along those lines. I don't quite buy it because I like to have a concept first, then assign stats which rolling doesn't always agree with. I can see the logic of his argument though.

[Petrocorus]

I personally never liked rolling stats. Not only it introduce unfairness between players who will have PC of different power level, i remember a game of Polaris where one of the guy was very lucky at creation and ended up with a PC who was basically better or as good at everything including their own speciality than half of the rest of the party.

But it also lead to the preposterous situation where a player has a PC he does not like or even does not want at all.
In the "good old days" of ADD1, if you followed the book, you had to roll 3d6 in order. And thanks to entry requirement for all classes, you could end up playing a rogue instead of a fighter because you had rolled a poor Str but a good Dex, and there were DM enforcing this.

This really drive me to oppose randomness when possible, and i must confess that the only times i agree with it are when i'm sure i can get higher stats than with point-buy.




I think you realize this because all of your examples involve someone dropping a tertiary stat in order to boost a primary stat to 18. Just as long as you realize that this is exactly what is going to happen most of the time, which means characters at your table are about to become a little more samey and 18s will no longer be special. If you realize this and want it, then go ahead.

That's one of the good points of point allocation. You can have one or two good stat, but it will cost you something and you won't be able to get a 18 at creation due to the cap at 15 with point-buy. And a DM has always a mean to bite you about your dump stats. Like the Int saves of -1 that may make illusions a real pain for you.

[gullveig]

One problem is that people really dislike negative modifiers and don't want to have flaws.
They are all "OMFG! I've Int 8, my char s**ks hard! Burn all my papers and dice! I don't wanna play this game anymore!"

[HoarsHalberd]

One problem is that people really dislike negative modifiers and don't want to have flaws.
They are all "OMFG! I've Int 8, my char s**ks hard! Burn all my papers and dice! I don't wanna play this game anymore!"

Some people.* My biggest problem with negative modifiers is remembering to RP it. 12 int, 10 wis and 6 cha on my current character and it is so hard not to use the cool lines I come up with.

[Finieous]

I wouldn't mind rolling 3d6 in 5e. If randomness and variability is what you want, that should work great. Otherwise, I'd just as soon stick to point buy or standard array. There are different ways to play and have fun, and none of them are objectively better than the others, but I don't really get the desire for super-high ability scores (plus ASIs!) in a game designed to be as easy as 5e. I grind my teeth a little (just a little) with all the posts here that start, "I got super lucky on my rolls, 18 18 17 16 16 12" or whatever.

[Talamare]

Rolling for stats is an archaic and toxic system. It leads to absolutely massive discrepancies between player characters creating painful experiences for the majority of the table.

DnD is not a game that you play for a few hours and never again, its an ongoing, long term system. Feeling weak and useless for long periods of time does not create an awesome experience.

[MaxWilson]

[QUOTE=RickAllison;20377381]Or people who want randomization of stats. Or new people who are using what the creators recommended. Or people who want to hearken back the days of old (3d6!).QUOTE]

In my experience people who like random mostly do just want higher numbers. However 3D6 is a different story. I have NEVER known a player to want to roll 3D6 for stats. 4D6 and drop the lowest one and even then if they roll #$#$ you can bet they will be unhappy with that character and banging on my door saying" Can I reroll?"

When I gave my players the choice in a side campaign between starting at level 1d3 with 4d6 drop lowest stats, or starting at level 5 with 3d6, to my surprise they all picked 3d6. This especially surprised me because advancement is fast at my table and I would have expected the low-level guys to hit level five within a few sessions.

They were all rolling up characters who had been lost in Cthulhu's dimension for years and were just about to fight their way out.

[LibraryOgre]

Rolling for stats is an archaic and toxic system. It leads to absolutely massive discrepancies between player characters creating painful experiences for the majority of the table.

DnD is not a game that you play for a few hours and never again, its an ongoing, long term system. Feeling weak and useless for long periods of time does not create an awesome experience.

A lot comes down to the weight put on ability scores, and the guidelines for rolling attributes, though. For example, 1e assumed 4d6-L, and suggested that you have 2 15s... not everyone was going to be a rock star, but that put you in the competent range for most things. Hackmaster assumes 3d6 in order, but rewards you for keeping those scores with additional Build Points, starts some bonuses earlier, and has rules to require that you don't get too crappy of stats (the "shopkeeper" rule which allows you a reject a set of stats completely if they have two scores of 5 or below or none above 13).

The counter-argument against assigned or point-buy stats is that you don't get serendipitous characters. Every mage gets made the exact same, optimum, way for the point buy. "I am playing a wizard. Therefore, I want an intelligence of X, a Constitution of Y, and the rest of the stats can go hang." "Wizard1 has died, but we still need a wizard. Therefore, I want an intelligence of X, a Constitution of Y, and the rest of the stats can go hang." "Wizard2 has died, but we still need a wizard. Therefore, I want an intelligence of X, a Constitution of Y, and the rest of the stats can go hang."

Array/Point buy stats encourage the gamification of character creation, rather than playing the game with the hand you're dealt. Random character generation gives you a hand of cards and tells you to make the most of it... which can lead to some fun and interesting places as you try to make a character with sub-par stats work.

[MaxWilson]

Rolling for stats is an archaic and toxic system. It leads to absolutely massive discrepancies between player characters creating painful experiences for the majority of the table.

DnD is not a game that you play for a few hours and never again, its an ongoing, long term system. Feeling weak and useless for long periods of time does not create an awesome experience.

Observation: rolling for stats is more popular at tables where high rates of PC turnover occur, due to death/retirement/new character concept. Tables whose playstyle supports heterogenous-levelled play (everyone starts at level 1) will be even friendlier to rolled stats because you don't have any believability issues with e.g. a 12th level Illusionist with Int 13 appearing out of nowhere, which invites the question "How did THAT guy become a high-level illusionist?"

Tables where one player has only four PCs over the space of 20 years will be friendlier to point buy, because the stakes are so high that their tolerance for risk is lower.

If you hate rolled stats, that fact says something about your playstyle.

[Pex]

Observation: rolling for stats is more popular at tables where high rates of PC turnover occur, due to death/retirement/new character concept. Tables whose playstyle supports heterogenous-levelled play (everyone starts at level 1) will be even friendlier to rolled stats because you don't have any believability issues with e.g. a 12th level Illusionist with Int 13 appearing out of nowhere, which invites the question "How did THAT guy become a high-level illusionist?"

Tables where one player has only four PCs over the space of 20 years will be friendlier to point buy, because the stakes are so high that their tolerance for risk is lower.

If you hate rolled stats, that fact says something about your playstyle.

Counterpoint: My Pathfinder group rolled for stats and we've been playing with the same characters for the last three years. We have used Point Buy for a separate campaign.

The liking or disliking of Point Buy has no relation to playstyle as much as the level of an individual's optimization has no relation to the individual's liking/disliking and ability to roleplay.

[CaptAl]

This game is based around the concept that the PC's will win most of the time. So, with the status quo, a group of PC's might have to get creative in order to meet the challenge presented, but the base assumption is that a group who encounters something level appropriate will get past the obstacle. Point Buy and Stat Array ensure the status quo. Dice Rolling introduces randomness which is a boon for the bad guys as often as not. Any introduction of randomness has the potential to hurt the status quo, and therefore the PC's. That being said, I twitch every single time I see the posts about "Optimize my Fighter I rolled 18,18,16,14,12,6". If you want a game wherein everyone is a god, this probably isn't the right system. But that's just my opinion.

There's no right or wrong way to go with character creation. Just preferences. I rolled for 10 years, and now that I'm involved in AL I'm totally down with point buy.

[MaxWilson]

This game is based around the concept that the PC's will win most of the time. So, with the status quo, a group of PC's might have to get creative in order to meet the challenge presented, but the base assumption is that a group who encounters something level appropriate will get past the obstacle. Point Buy and Stat Array ensure the status quo. Dice Rolling introduces randomness which is a boon for the bad guys as often as not. Any introduction of randomness has the potential to hurt the status quo, and therefore the PC's.

In practice, rolling stats is unlikely to hurt the PCs. Even if you get incredibly unlucky and roll 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3 you can still make a decent Moon Druid. The whole table will be in awe at the exploits of the nearly-mindless, fumbling, stuttering Engine Of Sudden Death!!! that is Ruprecht The Moon Druid. And he can even still play a support role as a healer with Cure Wounds and Greater Restoration/etc., supply Pass Without Trace to the whole party, Conjure wolves or bears to fight for the PCs, summon dryads (which will probably have a higher spellcasting DC than he himself does), etc.

High stats unlocks MAD builds, but you don't need high stats to play 5E. I'll wager that even a whole party full of individuals who roll below 10 on all abilities can still tackle a full DMG adventuring day.

[CantigThimble]

In practice, rolling stats is unlikely to hurt the PCs. Even if you get incredibly unlucky and roll 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3 you can still make a decent Moon Druid. The whole table will be in awe at the exploits of the nearly-mindless, fumbling, stuttering Engine Of Sudden Death!!! that is Ruprecht The Moon Druid. And he can even still play a support role as a healer with Cure Wounds and Greater Restoration/etc., supply Pass Without Trace to the whole party, Conjure wolves or bears to fight for the PCs, summon dryads (which will probably have a higher spellcasting DC than he himself does), etc.

High stats unlocks MAD builds, but you don't need high stats to play 5E. I'll wager that even a whole party full of individuals who roll below 10 on all abilities can still tackle a full DMG adventuring day.

Wait, what happens when you roll 1d8-3 for your cure wounds and get -2?

[gullveig]

(...) you don't need high stats to play 5E. I'll wager that even a whole party full of individuals who roll below 10 on all abilities can still tackle a full DMG adventuring day.

Yeah... Unlike 3e, the system of 5th edition keep things in reasonable values so everybody can succeed at something.

That is why I don't use +X armors and weapons or other stuff that gives numeric bonuses. A player still has a fair chance to hit with a melee weapon even with Strength of 6.

Example: To hit +0 (e.g. +2 prof, -2 Str) against AC 14 (e.g. scale mail) is a 30% chance of success.

In this example, you are not as good at melee as a fighter but it doesn't mean you are complete useless against a foe with good defenses.


Also... The OD&D have smaller modifiers per Ability score (13-15 = +1; 16-7 = +2; 18 = +3), that is why they don't cared too much about rolling stats.

[Nicodiemus]

I guess the "problem" is, and I hesitate to even call it that, is that most people play TTRPGs for escapism and fantasy wish fulfillment. Most people want to be THE HERO or at least A hero and see any below average stat as ruining that. More dramatically oriented players might get into the tragic flaw/ hubris type characters. Again, to each his own.

[MaxWilson]

Wait, what happens when you roll 1d8-3 for your cure wounds and get -2?

Haha, good question. Better use a higher-level slot than 1st. :) 1st-level slots can go to Goodberry.

[RickAllison]

As a fun little experiment, I decided to roll a series of 4d6b3 just for kicks. The majority of the rolls occurred around the 26-32 PBE range, what you would expect for a methods known for generally providing better stats than point buy, but I found it interesting seeing the extremes come up. The best was a 56 PBE (ridiculous, 18/17/16/15/15/12), which is high enough to MC into every class without ASIs. The worst was a 6, with 15/13/10/7/5/3. Really cements the idea that those who enjoy having unique character builds can get a significant amount of joy out of rolling with lots of variation, but obviously that is not the case for every person. Not everyone would enjoy playing a character with a net bonus of -6.

[MaxWilson]

As a fun little experiment, I decided to roll a series of 4d6b3 just for kicks. The majority of the rolls occurred around the 26-32 PBE range, what you would expect for a methods known for generally providing better stats than point buy, but I found it interesting seeing the extremes come up. The best was a 56 PBE (ridiculous, 18/17/16/15/15/12), which is high enough to MC into every class without ASIs. The worst was a 6, with 15/13/10/7/5/3. Really cements the idea that those who enjoy having unique character builds can get a significant amount of joy out of rolling with lots of variation, but obviously that is not the case for every person. Not everyone would enjoy playing a character with a net bonus of -6.

Speaking as a powergamer, that array looks perfectly usable to me. Jayne Cobb: Human Fighter 1 (ex-criminal) LE Folk Hero, Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 5, Cha 3, Sharpshooter. Spent his life robbing and stealing things until one day he killed a dude who, it turned out, was oppressing a punch of peasants who idolized their new hero. Low self-esteem made Jayne extremely sensitive to this newfound thing called "admiration" and he has made himself their protector and champion while they in turn supply him with luxury goods (by their standards) and worshipful attention. He can do no wrong in their eyes. Long-term, Jayne will boost Dex to 20 and maybe take feats like Tough, Mobile, Martial Adept, and Lucky.

I would have turned your 18/17/16/15/15/12 roll into a warbearian. Barbarian 1, Fiendlock 1-5, Barbarian 2, Fiendlock 6-9, Barbarian 3, Fiendlock 10-17. Utterly hilariously awesome class to play but very MAD. More versatile than Jayne is but not all that much more powerful in practice--closer to 25% better than to 100% better. Opportunity cost of class levels is a thing in 5E.

[EvadableMoxie]

I liked rolling in 3.5. In 5e, I think standard array or point buy is better.

Stats are just way more important in 5e because stats work the same way and yet every other bonus, from skill ranks, to spell bonuses, to magical items has been severely reduced.

It's true that bounded accuracy means the DCs are lower, but the fact still remains that a higher percentage of what determines if you meet the DCs now comes from stats than it did before. You can't just dump 10 buffs spell on someone to fix all their problems anymore.

The final consideration is that min-maxing was a way bigger problem in 3.5 than it is in 5e. You kinda of wanted the protection from a power-gamer making a neigh-invulnerable powerhouse using 17 different source books, but that really isn't an issue in 5e.

Now, there is a certain conceit people have that goes something like this "A true roleplay just plays the character the dice gives them! They could play a character with a 3 in all stats and still have fun!"

I disagree with this. There is not a magical wall that separates combat and roleplay in DnD. Roleplay involves everything, including combat.

A horrible character with bad rolls that always fails and is crappy in combat would eventually have to ask themselves why are they doing this in the first place, and if a re-evaluation of their life choices might not be in order.

But beyond that, while some people probably do have fun with weak characters, that certainly isn't everyone. Most people want to play badasses. That's not a bad thing.

It's just easier and safer to use point buys or a standard array. It takes the guess work out of it and makes sure everyone is happy with their character and playing what they want to play.

[Mith]

Personally, I prefer a roll system instead of a point buy because that's how I got introduced to things, so point buy just seems odd to me. I have used it for a quick build, but my personal preference will likely always be rolling for dice. I just have 3 sets to choose from usually, unless they all turn out to be crap, then you can roll for something playable (the all 3 character would have been ruled as unfit to the hard lifestyle of the road for example)

[Icewraith]

I do the 4d6 matrix method, but with 7 rolls. You must take them as rolled from left to right of the row (or diagonal) or top to bottom of the column. You must drop one roll. You may switch any two stats once, and you may reroll any one stat once, but are stuck with the second result.

The entire table selects from the same matrix when generating characters.

The DM may veto or reroll a particularly strong or weak row. If you're concerned about balance, you can cap any scores above 16 (or 15) to 16 (or 15) and below 7 (or 8) to 7 (or 8). You can even cap the character's stat used for offense to 15 if you're worried about power creep.

While yes, there's an overall higher average stat distribution, it's not necessarily exactly where you want it. It's refreshing to not have a party comprised of people with 8 str and one guy in heavy armor with dex 8 every single time. You can have wise rogues and smart fighters that aren't automatically eldritch knights, strong wizards and so forth.

[Petrocorus]

Speaking as a powergamer, that array looks perfectly usable to me. Jayne Cobb: Human Fighter 1 (ex-criminal) LE Folk Hero, Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 5, Cha 3, Sharpshooter. Spent his life robbing and stealing things until one day he killed a dude who, it turned out, was oppressing a punch of peasants who idolized their new hero. Low self-esteem made Jayne extremely sensitive to this newfound thing called "admiration" and he has made himself their protector and champion while they in turn supply him with luxury goods (by their standards) and worshipful attention. He can do no wrong in their eyes. Long-term, Jayne will boost Dex to 20 and maybe take feats like Tough, Mobile, Martial Adept, and Lucky.


And he call his bow "Vera".

Our love for him now ain't hard to explain.

[MaxWilson]

Now, there is a certain conceit people have that goes something like this "A true roleplay just plays the character the dice gives them! They could play a character with a 3 in all stats and still have fun!"

Heh. Speaking for myself, I'd phrase it slightly differently. It's not the roleplayers who are likely to get snooty about stat rolling IMO, it is the powergamers and other people who explicitly like a challenge.

"A true powergamer relies on brains, not mechanical abilities. They could play a character with 3s in all stats and still contribute to the success of the party; although they won't have as many different ways of contributing as they would with higher stats so it will get boring faster."

With threes in all stats, your attack rolls, HP and saves will be rubbish, and you won't be able to multiclass, which leaves the following roles open to you:

1.) Healer or superhealer (Lore Bard)
2.) Wildshape tank (Moon Druid)
3.) Summoner (Druid, Bard, or Wizard)
4.) Helper (Mastermind)
5.) Disabler (Swashbuckler w/ Perception Expertise)
6.) Diviner (Wizard, possibly Bard)
7.) Transportation specialist (Wizard, Druid)
8.) No-save crowd control (Warlock, Wizard, Bard)
9.) Regular crowd-control at low efficiency (Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Bard)

That isn't a ton of options compared to a regular PC, but by covering e.g. summoning, divination, healing, and no-save crowd control as a Lore Bard, you'd still be contributing to your party in valuable ways and freeing up other PCs to focus on other stuff.

Ned the Cripple: Human Lore Bard 7 Folk Hero
Str 3 Dex 3 Con 3 Int 3 Wis 3 Cha 3 HP 24
Expertise in Stealth (+2), Athletics (+2)
Magical Secrets: Aura of Vitality, Pass Without Trace
Feats: Healer, Tough
Spells include: Freedom of Movement, Greater Invisibility, Clairvoyance, Dimension Door, Dispel Magic, Lesser Restoration, Plant Growth, Heat Metal, Longstrider, Heroism, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleep, Faerie Fire. [AFB so I don't know if I got the count right but you get the idea.]
Default action in combat: Hide, buff somebody with Greater Invisibility or Heroism, use Inspiration or Cutting Words 1/short rest when it counts, be ready to Heal anyone who goes down. After combat, patch people up with Aura of Vitality.

Later on at 10th level he can steal Death Ward and Bless as Magical Secrets, and will also know Greater Restoration, Animate Objects, and Raise Dead.

You can't tell me that Ned the Cripple wouldn't contribute to an adventuring party. The hard part would be roleplaying him correctly.

[Talamare]

Ned the Cripple: Human Lore Bard 7 Folk Hero
Str 3 Dex 3 Con 3 Int 3 Wis 3 Cha 3 HP 24

Level 1 HP = 4, Since you're at -4 Con (assuming you don't take tough as a Variant Human)
Each level up, you gain 1 hp if you take the average.
With your luck of rolling 1s, you probably will roll another 1 for HP, placing you at 1 HP at level 2
and leveling up, literally kills you.

[MaxWilson]

Level 1 HP = 4, Since you're at -4 Con (assuming you don't take tough as a Variant Human)
Each level up, you gain 1 hp if you take the average.
With your luck of rolling 1s, you probably will roll another 1 for HP, placing you at 1 HP at level 2
and leveling up, literally kills you.

As you can see, he's got "Feats: Healer, Tough". That means (8-4+2)=6 HP at first level, and (5-4+2)=3 HP per level thereafter. Hence 6+6*3=24 HP at 7th level.

[RickAllison]

Also, the minimum HP gain in a level is one, regardless of how negative Con is. Thus, his average health would be X+Level. With 1d8, that would be 9=>10=>11... All the way up to 28 at L20. It would be a very interesting journey.

[Talamare]

As you can see, he's got "Feats: Healer, Tough". That means (8-4+2)=6 HP at first level, and (5-4+2)=3 HP per level thereafter. Hence 6+6*3=24 HP at 7th level.
Which is why I added the caveat that if he didn't have Tough, altho its also common courtesy to order your Feats to when you took them. So "Feats: Healer, Tough", implies you took Healer at 1.


Also, the minimum HP gain in a level is one, regardless of how negative Con is. Thus, his average health would be X+Level. With 1d8, that would be 9=>10=>11... All the way up to 28 at L20. It would be a very interesting journey.

Of course, of course, but... Remind me, where in the PHB does it state that?

[RickAllison]

Which is why I added the caveat that if he didn't have Tough, altho its also common courtesy to order your Feats to when you took them. So "Feats: Healer, Tough", implies you took Healer at 1.



Of course, of course, but... Remind me, where in the PHB does it state that?

My bad, apparently it was in the playtest and older editions. Either they forgot it, didn't think it was important, or wanted it to be possible to die from leveling up when they wrote the PHB, so whether that kills you is up to the DM.

EDIT: Fun fact, though. By the same logic that permits you to die from leveling up, punching people can heal them! Since no rules exist in the PHB for minimum damage, and the base damage for an unarmed strike is 1, someone with a Strength modifier of -3 would technically heal the target for 2 points of damage.

[Blacky the Blackball]

I am fond of what I call the "matrix method." You roll up six columns of six numbers (using 4d6 drop low), in order. Then you choose the row, column, or diagonal you like the best. Once you've chosen the six numbers you'll use in this fashion, you may re-arrange those numbers to your stats as you see fit.

It leads to a relatively high average result, but tends to still have enough variance to be interesting. And sometimes the choices are painful - do you go for that one with the three 15s and nothing below 12, or do you take the 7 and 8 to get the 2 18s?

In the past I've used something similar to your matrix method (I called it the "Bingo" method), but with the following differences:

1) The group roll only one matrix between them and all choose rows, columns or diagonals from that same matrix. The matrix is kept for the duration of the campaign and any new characters (due to deaths or new players joining) use the same matrix too.

2) The scores have to be used in the order that they're in the matrix, although you do have the choice of reading from left-to right or right-to left (or the equivalent for verticals and diagonals). You can't rearrange them.

The inability to rearrange scores means that people don't simply take the row or column with the highest scores but must instead choose the ones that are most suitable for the class they want to play; and everyone choosing from the same matrix levels the playing field and means that if one character has higher scores than another it's through choice rather than one player just being luckier than another.

[JellyPooga]

2) The scores have to be used in the order that they're in the matrix, although you do have the choice of reading from left-to right or right-to left (or the equivalent for verticals and diagonals). You can't rearrange them

The only issue I have with this is that it seems unduly limiting on the types of character that can or more likely will be played. For instance, it's possible (though admittedly quite unlikely) that the fist and last entry on each row/column could be no higher than, say, 12. This means that any character who wants high Str or Cha is plumb out of luck...for the whole campaign!

Likewise, if the only 18 rolled is on the 2nd entry on a row, then it's probably very likely that there'll be a high temptation to play a Rogue or Cleric (that 2nd entry translating to Dex or Wis) as opposed to a Wizard, Bard or Barbarian.

I'd at least give the option to switch one number around, if only to open up a little more diversity of characters.

[Segev]

Some people.* My biggest problem with negative modifiers is remembering to RP it. 12 int, 10 wis and 6 cha on my current character and it is so hard not to use the cool lines I come up with.

As a possible suggestion, go ahead and use them, but deliver them with way, WAY too much ham and cheese. And then laugh at your own joke. 6 Cha doesn't mean you can't be witty (and a 12 int is above average, so you can be a little wittier than your average joe), but it means you can't deliver a joke worth a darn.

Also, inappropriate timing.

[RickAllison]

As a possible suggestion, go ahead and use them, but deliver them with way, WAY too much ham and cheese. And then laugh at your own joke. 6 Cha doesn't mean you can't be witty (and a 12 int is above average, so you can be a little wittier than your average joe), but it means you can't deliver a joke worth a darn.

Also, inappropriate timing.

"Well your husband is a dead ringer for the criminal!"
"You cut out his intestines in the town square!"

[Segev]

"Well your husband is a dead ringer for the criminal!"
"You cut out his intestines in the town square!"

Exactly!

Oh, and one my brother is often guilty of: if nobody is laughing, you need to repeat it; they obviously didn't get it. Those blank, horrified stares are just a sign that they need it explained. Possibly in detail.

[Petrocorus]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.
Is this only to avoid players putting two or three 8 on their PC to optimize and get three 15? Or to have every PC of the same class with the same stats?
At this point i wonder if there would not be easier method to achieve that.

[Segev]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.
Is this only to avoid players putting two or three 8 on their PC to optimize and get three 15? Or to have every PC of the same class with the same stats?
At this point i wonder if there would not be easier method to achieve that.

I can't speak for everybody, but for me, it's just plain fun. It's another mini-game to play.

[N810]

You should go crazy and just roll a d20+0 for every stat,

in order... and ...
after choosing race and class. :xykon:

[RickAllison]

You should go crazy and just roll a d20+0 for every stat,

in order... and ...
after choosing race and class. :xykon:

... This would be a nightmare...

And it would be awesome. For a jocular game, you could have so much fun with wizards with the brain of an animal, paladins who can design the greatest cathedrals but are terrible at everything else, fighters who is the wisest sage in the world, etc.

EDIT: First rolliing: Str 1, Dex 1, Con 20, Int 17, Wis 9, Cha 11. Wow.

[MaxWilson]

Which is why I added the caveat that if he didn't have Tough, altho its also common courtesy to order your Feats to when you took them. So "Feats: Healer, Tough", implies you took Healer at 1.

"Healer at 1" was also what was in my head; but by the time he hits 7th level, his 1st level HP are no longer relevant. He just has 24 HP straight-up.

I think the reason your post bugged me was that I wrote one character and you took half of it and ignored the rest and postulated a new character, without changing the name or making it clear that you were actually making "Ted the Cripple" instead of Ned. Get your own supercripple and get off my lawn!

========================================


Exactly!

Oh, and one my brother is often guilty of: if nobody is laughing, you need to repeat it; they obviously didn't get it. Those blank, horrified stares are just a sign that they need it explained. Possibly in detail.

So true. This is a great way to play a low-Cha character.

[Pex]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.
Is this only to avoid players putting two or three 8 on their PC to optimize and get three 15? Or to have every PC of the same class with the same stats?
At this point i wonder if there would not be easier method to achieve that.

It's an attempt to minimize the inherent luck factor that can lead to too poor arrays and too good arrays, with "too poor/good" subjective to the individual. One 8 is not a problem. Three 8s and no score above 11 is despite if someone here can make a character with that they'd like to play. The math of the game matters. Four 18s and no score below 14 is also a problem. It just so happens some people do tend to go overboard in their attempt of minimization.

[CantigThimble]

... This would be a nightmare...

And it would be awesome. For a jocular game, you could have so much fun with wizards with the brain of an animal, paladins who can design the greatest cathedrals but are terrible at everything else, fighters who is the wisest sage in the world, etc.

EDIT: First rolliing: Str 1, Dex 1, Con 20, Int 17, Wis 9, Cha 11. Wow.

I'll go with a mountain dwarf wizard.

Str: 10+2 Dex: 10 Con: 2+2 Int: 1 Wis: 3 Cha: 12

Um, well, huh. So, 3 HP, I can kinda use an axe and I'll prepare magic missile or shield as my single spell before level 7. I'll use booming blade as my damaging cantrip.

Edit: I thought of a great nickname for him: 'One Page Spellbook'

[RickAllison]

I'll go with a mountain dwarf wizard.

Str: 10+2 Dex: 10 Con: 2+2 Int: 1 Wis: 3 Cha: 12

Um, well, huh. So, 3 HP, I can kinda use an axe and I'll prepare magic missile or shield as my single spell before level 7. I'll use booming blade as my damaging cantrip.

See, this could actually be a potentially fun thing for a light-hearted campaign :smallbiggrin:

[Laserlight]

See, this could actually be a potentially fun thing for a light-hearted campaign :smallbiggrin:

Okay, let's give it a try. Half orc barbarian, rolls before racial: STR 1...well, that's a great start! DEX 17 CON 17 INT 8 WIS 16 CHA 3.

Yep, I would definitely play that.

I may have my players do this for a one-shot. :-)

[CantigThimble]

Okay, let's give it a try. Half orc barbarian, rolls before racial: STR 1...well, that's a great start! DEX 17 CON 17 INT 8 WIS 16 CHA 3.

Yep, I would definitely play that.

I may have my players do this for a one-shot. :-)

So use a rapier and have 16 AC. While scale mail and a shield would give you a better AC it also puts you over your maximum carrying capacity. You'll need to make sure you never carry more than 45lbs of stuff.

[MaxWilson]

So use a rapier and have 16 AC. While scale mail and a shield would give you a better AC it also puts you over your maximum carrying capacity. You'll need to make sure you never carry more than 45lbs of stuff.

Actually he'll have AC 17 once you add in half-orc racial bonuses: Dex 17 Con 18.

Totally playable, but more than a little bizarre to see so many people rolling ones. Something's wrong with y'all's dice. :)

[Petrocorus]

It's an attempt to minimize the inherent luck factor that can lead to too poor arrays and too good arrays, with "too poor/good" subjective to the individual. One 8 is not a problem. Three 8s and no score above 11 is despite if someone here can make a character with that they'd like to play. The math of the game matters. Four 18s and no score below 14 is also a problem. It just so happens some people do tend to go overboard in their attempt of minimization.

Then in this case, i go back to the main question, why rolling for stat in the first place?

[MaxWilson]

Then in this case, i go back to the main question, why rolling for stat in the first place?

Most people who roll for stats probably wouldn't use these complicated methods. You're seeing Darwinian selection in action: those who don't like over-complicated methods have already dropped out of the thread.

Don't mistake noise level for mindshare.

[Theodoxus]

From my experience, on both sides of the screen, having wildly swinging stats for each player results in problems.

I built a skill monkey - a rogue/cleric (Knowledge) with a decent Int, Wis and Dex (13+) and ok Con & Chr, with Str being tanked. He had expertise in Arcane, History, Perception and Stealth. We had a wizard and a bard who overlapped on some skills.

Even with expertise, I would routinely be 'out rolled' on skill checks. Because my stats were lower than the 'specialists', unless I rolled exceptionally well, skill checks typically didn't go my way.

Now, part of the problem is certainly the way our table does skills - it's generally someone will shout out "Ooh, i wanna do a 'enter random skill here' check!" and then everyone who has that skill will roll, and if the rolls are particularly low, even the unskilled with toss a die, on a whim. So, being a 'skill monkey' is less about having the relevant skill and more about knowing when to suggest a check... but if each character around the table had an 18+ in one different stat, at least then, each player would have a unique job to do.

I'd almost prefer straight 14s on all the characters to start, then let ASIs differentiate them as they level. At least then, skill checks would be more uniform at low levels and players/characters can work on what attributes/skills they actually enjoy using.

I guess as i get older, I prefer my dice rolling to have meaning, rather than a 85% chance of success because my stats are uber.

[Cybren]

Most people who roll for stats probably wouldn't use these complicated methods. You're seeing Darwinian selection in action: those who don't like over-complicated methods have already dropped out of the thread.

Don't mistake noise level for mindshare.

Here's an over complicated method: roll a bunch of dice. maybe 30? then group them in 6 sets of 3 and those are your stats

[CantigThimble]

Most people who roll for stats probably wouldn't use these complicated methods. You're seeing Darwinian selection in action: those who don't like over-complicated methods have already dropped out of the thread.

Don't mistake noise level for mindshare.

Yeeeah, for the most part groups I've been in have used 4d6 best 3 with DM generosity that basically evens out to nothing lower than a 7 and at least one 16+. Is a this a mechanically sound method with good justifications that maximizes fun and fairness? Probably not, but no one actually cares; too busy killing Yuan-Ti.

In the group I am simultaneously running I just used point buy to create the characters for the brand new players I have. That also works fine it seems, not really clear, they have bigger issues than worrying about stats. Like the player who gave himself the title 'Prince of Chaos' and delicate situations requiring tact, negotiation and... ah who am I kidding, they just lit the building on fire and called in a dragon strike. Had a lot of fun though!

[LibraryOgre]

Here's an over complicated method: roll a bunch of dice. maybe 30? then group them in 6 sets of 3 and those are your stats

This is similar to a core method in 2e... something like "Start with 8 in every stat. Roll Xd6, and assign them as whole dice to various stats. Nothing can be over 18.*" The chunkiness of the d6s means its harder to land RIGHT at 18 without making some choices, but the number of dice you roll makes it more likely that everyone will have an approximately equal total.

*I haven't looked at it in a few years, so I might be off on the details, and I don't remember what the X was.

[EvadableMoxie]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.

That was my reaction as well. If you are going to roll that many times you'll end up way more powerful than a standard array or point buy.

Or, if you are just going to re-roll every time you get bad stats until your stats are at least average, why not cut out the middle man and just use a standard array?

Basically, if someone having crappy stats is bad, and someone having God stats is bad, why are people jumping through hoops to find ways to leave it to chance without really leaving it to chance when you can just not even bother with all that in the first place?

[gfishfunk]

Now I'm tempted to make my players roll 1(4d6), 2(3d6), 2(4d4+3), and 1(3d4) to intentionally gimp them.

[Talamare]

This is similar to a core method in 2e... something like "Start with 8 in every stat. Roll Xd6, and assign them as whole dice to various stats. Nothing can be over 18.*" The chunkiness of the d6s means its harder to land RIGHT at 18 without making some choices, but the number of dice you roll makes it more likely that everyone will have an approximately equal total.

*I haven't looked at it in a few years, so I might be off on the details, and I don't remember what the X was.

This is the first interesting suggestion I've seen. Altho, I would drop the whole "roll" part

What if, you start with 8 on all stats, and you can distribute the values 6/5/4/3/2/1 among your stats. Max, 15
So you will end up with ... (does mental math)............ know what, I just ended with an awkward poorly balanced pointbuy. Disregard everything.

[Pex]

Then in this case, i go back to the main question, why rolling for stat in the first place?

Because minimizing the luck factor is not to get rid of it completely. Point Buy tends to produce cookie-cutter characters with everyone having the same scores just in different places which some view as a negative because it's boring. Two characters of the same class will also have the same scores. Racial modifiers also force races into particular classes. Half-Elf and Tiefling warlocks are a dime a dozen. Show me a Dwarf warlock. Not to say there never was and never will be a player who plays a Dwarf warlock using Point Buy, only that it's so rare it's the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

Implementation of Point Buy can also be a factor. A "decent" array is subjective to the individual. I abhor 5E Point Buy precisely because it forbids an 18 at first level. I don't demand to have one for every character ever I play. I just object to the outright forbiddance of it. I do not think it's an abomination for a 1st level character to have an 18. Pathfinder Point Buy, on the other hand, I have come to like though admittedly it was a long process. Scores are still cookie-cutter, but there is leeway for "decent" arrays and you can choose to dump a stat instead of being forced to. However, I would never play a paladin or monk with its minimal 15 Point Buy. The math behind the game causes it to be not "decent" at all. Personal subjective opinion, of course. If 5E Point Buy allowed for an 18 and you started at 10s and can choose to go to 8 with a bit more of a point value to spend to account for all this, then I'd be happy. 5E implementation is what bugs me the most rather than the concept of Point Buy itself.

[Icewraith]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.
Is this only to avoid players putting two or three 8 on their PC to optimize and get three 15? Or to have every PC of the same class with the same stats?
At this point i wonder if there would not be easier method to achieve that.

Well one, I have the players roll together at the same time (I just record rolls) and then make characters, which worked tremendously well in terms of promoting group cohesion. I also enforced a rule I've been considering for a while, which is that your primary character sheet must be filled out by hand. Pre-generated spell sheets are still actively encouraged, but it cuts down on a lot of the "wait I forgot I had this" when playing new characters. It's also more environmentally freindly, since a few of our players were still in the 4e mindset of "reprint eight pages of stuff every time you level". Additionally, it reminds them how the system's math works.

Two, if you do point buy, especially a limited point buy, people feel obligated to optimize their stats, which results in the same classes always having the same predictable values in their dump stats. At this point it's gotten boring, and I haven't DMed in a while, and I've wanted to try it out for a while now, so I took the opportunity.

Three, the specifics of the 7x7 method (drop one stat, swap any two, and reroll one but you're stuck with the second roll) ensure that you can still put your best score in your primary attribute yet allow for random, organically generated stats without "shoot I wanted to play a wizard but rolled an 8 INT".

Four, nobody at the table is overshadowed by the one guy who rolled above 15 for everything since any player can select any row, column, or diagonal.

Five, the DM can still control the power level of the campaign if there's one insanely good row of stats.

The result (so far) is instead of focusing on "maximize your survival stats and dump everything else", players identified the top four or so rows and then put some thought into how they wanted their other stats to end up. It worked great.

Edit: I beleive I had the players decide on the class (or if unsure, top two at most) they wanted to play before picking stats.

[Sigreid]

Not only it introduce unfairness between players (a lot snipped)

I'm always surprised when this statement comes up. If all of the players are using the same method, they all have exactly the same chance for any given array to come up. Basically, fair does not necessarily mean equal and equal is not always fair. Sometimes there's no relationship between the two at all.

Edit: To be clear I'm not having a go at anyone who prefers point by or array. I'm just confused by the idea that everyone using the same method could ever be "unfair".

[Sigreid]

What i notice on this thread, is that people who roll for stat tend to use overcomplicated method to roll. A matrix of 7 x 7 rolls means 49 rolls with additional rules about swapping and dismissing rolls.
What is the actual point of this? I'm genuinely asking.
Is this only to avoid players putting two or three 8 on their PC to optimize and get three 15? Or to have every PC of the same class with the same stats?
At this point i wonder if there would not be easier method to achieve that.

I think what you are seeing here is outliers that want to talk about creative ways of adding some randomization to characters. I've never played with a group that didn't just do 4d6b3, usually allowing you to place them as you wish.

[EvadableMoxie]

Show me a Dwarf warlock. Not to say there never was and never will be a player who plays a Dwarf warlock using Point Buy, only that it's so rare it's the proverbial exception that proves the rule.


The reasons one would or wouldn't make a dwarf warlock are exactly the same with rolled stats, point buy, or standard array. If you value maxing your charisma, you won't make a dwarf regardless of what you rolled. If you don't, you might either way. The only way that changes is if your roll scheme somehow allows you to start with 20 charisma, which would be ridiculous.

[HoarsHalberd]

Show me a Dwarf warlock. Not to say there never was and never will be a player who plays a Dwarf warlock using Point Buy, only that it's so rare it's the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

Mountain dwarf bladelock, 15 str, 15 cha, 14 dex, 10 con, 8 int, 8 wis. Pretty damn good set up for a bladelock, ends out with 20 str, 20 cha and 17 AC whilst having an ASI for PAM for an extra attack with the +5 cha damage (+4 up till 19.) Probably the best str bladelock build you can make with point buy. But I get your point.

[Icewraith]

I'm always surprised when this statement comes up. If all of the players are using the same method, they all have exactly the same chance for any given array to come up. Basically, fair does not necessarily mean equal and equal is not always fair. Sometimes there's no relationship between the two at all.

Edit: To be clear I'm not having a go at anyone who prefers point by or array. I'm just confused by the idea that everyone using the same method could ever be "unfair".

Some of my first D&D sessions were spent with what I didn't know were quite bad rolls trying to find effective things to do while standing next to the guy who knew what he was doing and started with an 18. The whole reason we use dice in games is to let random chance interact with the story we're trying to tell, and I think characters benefit from that if they're generated the same way. However, I don't want to force my players to play an ineffective character for months because of one night of bad rolls.

[Pex]

I'm always surprised when this statement comes up. If all of the players are using the same method, they all have exactly the same chance for any given array to come up. Basically, fair does not necessarily mean equal and equal is not always fair. Sometimes there's no relationship between the two at all.

Edit: To be clear I'm not having a go at anyone who prefers point by or array. I'm just confused by the idea that everyone using the same method could ever be "unfair".

Add to that there is nothing wrong or hypocritical to acknowledge the inherent luck factor of dice rolling such that if one player really did roll an array that is The Suck, especially compared to the other players, just let the player reroll. You don't have to be enslaved by the first array rolled.


The reasons one would or wouldn't make a dwarf warlock are exactly the same with rolled stats, point buy, or standard array. If you value maxing your charisma, you won't make a dwarf regardless of what you rolled. If you don't, you might either way. The only way that changes is if your roll scheme somehow allows you to start with 20 charisma, which would be ridiculous.

Even though Dwarf does not increase CH if you rolled a 16 - 18 you would still put it in CH and have a nice score for your Dwarf warlock anyway, especially if you're lucky to get that 18.

Mind, Point Buy is a variant. 4d6 rolled is the "official" rule where as a dragonborn barbarian player could roll an 18, put it in Strength, and have a 20 Strength at 1st level, so it's not so "ridiculous".

[EvadableMoxie]

Even though Dwarf does not increase CH if you rolled a 16 - 18 you would still put it in CH and have a nice score for your Dwarf warlock anyway, especially if you're lucky to get that 18.

The reason people don't play dwarf warlock isn't because of starting stats, it's because if you plan to max charisma, playing dwarf essentially costs you an extra feat because that's one more ASI and 1 less feat you have to take to get there. That's true if you go from 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 or 18 to 20.

5ee is different from 3.5. The difference in starting stats is huge because there are so few ways to increase your bonuses, and increasing stats isn't automatic, it comes at a cost.

[Pex]

The reason people don't play dwarf warlock isn't because of starting stats, it's because if you plan to max charisma, playing dwarf essentially costs you an extra feat because that's one more ASI and 1 less feat you have to take to get there. That's true if you go from 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 or 18 to 20.

5ee is different from 3.5. The difference in starting stats is huge because there are so few ways to increase your bonuses, and increasing stats isn't automatic, it comes at a cost.

By rolling the 18 and putting it in Charisma you need only one ASI to get it to 20 compared to Point Buy where the best you can get is 17, thus needing two ASI to get to 20 and you aren't playing a Dwarf.

[Petrocorus]

Pathfinder Point Buy, on the other hand, I have come to like though admittedly it was a long process. Scores are still cookie-cutter, but there is leeway for "decent" arrays and you can choose to dump a stat instead of being forced to. However, I would never play a paladin or monk with its minimal 15 Point Buy. The math behind the game causes it to be not "decent" at all. Personal subjective opinion, of course. If 5E Point Buy allowed for an 18 and you started at 10s and can choose to go to 8 with a bit more of a point value to spend to account for all this, then I'd be happy. 5E implementation is what bugs me the most rather than the concept of Point Buy itself.

PF point buy with 15 points is more or less the same that 5E point buy with 27 points. The only difference is that you can go up to 18, but for 17 point which mean one 8 and everything else at 10. Much worse in term of minimaxing.
Of course the DM can give more points, but a DM in 5E can also do that even if it's not explicit in the PHB.

[pwykersotz]

EDIT: Fun fact, though. By the same logic that permits you to die from leveling up, punching people can heal them! Since no rules exist in the PHB for minimum damage, and the base damage for an unarmed strike is 1, someone with a Strength modifier of -3 would technically heal the target for 2 points of damage.

I've never understood why people interpret it this way when it could be damage you take for landing the blow. You're so bad at hitting someone that you break your first.

[Pex]

PF point buy with 15 points is more or less the same that 5E point buy with 27 points. The only difference is that you can go up to 18, but for 17 point which mean one 8 and everything else at 10. Much worse in term of minimaxing.
Of course the DM can give more points, but a DM in 5E can also do that even if it's not explicit in the PHB.

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder 15 points either, but I've done personal exercises on the matter in the hypothetical I ever decide to play in a game that uses that low value for the core classes. I can "get over it" for the low point value for every class except paladin and monk. Low Point Buy hurts MAD classes heavily. Even Fighter works. 16 ST, 14 CO, 10 everywhere else. Play Human, boost ST to 18, put favored class bonus into hit points, take Toughness feat. If I care to bother, accept and lump I'm not the face of the party, dump CH to 7 and boost Dex to 12 for the extra AC in platemail, and 12 in Intelligence if I want the skill points or Wisdom if I care more for will save for that character. Let's say Intelligence. Final array is ST 18 DX 12 CO 14 IN 12 WI 10 CH 7 which will work fine for the low power game. Had I rolled 16, 12, 14, 12, 10, 7 I cringe the 7 but would still be happy, though I wouldn't be playing a paladin or monk anyway.

[MaxWilson]

I've never understood why people interpret it this way when it could be damage you take for landing the blow. You're so bad at hitting someone that you break your first.

Because integer arithmetic.

[EvadableMoxie]

By rolling the 18 and putting it in Charisma you need only one ASI to get it to 20 compared to Point Buy where the best you can get is 17, thus needing two ASI to get to 20 and you aren't playing a Dwarf.

But this is based on a false premise where I've said to myself "I must hit 20 within 2 ASIs, and reducing it below that amount has no value for me"

That premise is false. No one would think that. Requiring 0 ASIs instead of 1 is just as valuable as requiring 2 instead of 3, or 1 instead of 2.

My goal is not to need a specific amount of ASIs to hit 20, it's to hit 20 with the fewest ASIs possible. If I rolled 18 I can go a +2 Charisma race and hit 20 with Zero ASIs. If I roll dwarf, I need 1 ASI. This means Dwarf costs me 1 feat/ASI.

If I used point buy and started with 15 instead of 16 or 17 by going with a Charisma race, I need 3 ASIs instead of 2. This means Dwarf costs me 1 feat/ASI.

Cost of going dwarf if you roll: 1 Feat/ASI.

Cost of going dwarf if you point buy: 1 Feat/ASI.

There is no difference. The incentive is exactly the same.

[pwykersotz]

Because integer arithmetic.

I get that, it's the resolution of the math in game terms part that eludes me. Or rather, the lack thereof with punch healing.

[MaxWilson]

I get that, it's the resolution of the math in game terms part that eludes me. Or rather, the lack thereof with punch healing.

Obviously no one actually plays this way--but logically, doing -3 damage and then 5 damage ought to have the same result as doing 2 damage. If you interpret -3 as "damages the puncher" then you get a total of 8 damage inflicted instead of 2. It also leads to a bizarre situation wherein extremely weak creatures are better at hurting themselves (e.g. to get out of Polymorph) than moderately weak creatures, even if they have the same Con.

I don't think that's an improvement over just declaring 0 to be minimum damage.

[pwykersotz]

Obviously no one actually plays this way--but logically, doing -3 damage and then 5 damage out to have the same result as doing 2 damage. If you interpret -3 as "damages the puncher" then you get a total of 8 damage inflicted instead of 2. It also leads to a bizarre situation wherein extremely weak creatures are better at hurting themselves (e.g. to get out of Polymorph) than moderately weak creatures, even if they have the same Con.

I don't think that's an improvement over just declaring 0 to be minimum damage.

All fair points that I agree with, especially minimum damage. I just think that healing a creature is the least playable interpretation,and is the first one that discussions seem to jump to.

[MaxWilson]

All fair points that I agree with, especially minimum damage. I just think that healing a creature is the least playable interpretation,and is the first one that discussions seem to jump to.

Probably because it is so imminently exploitable and therefore appealing to munchkins. The saner interpretations like "does no damage" are so simple that there's nothing to say about them, and no discussion therefore takes place.

[CantigThimble]

All fair points that I agree with, especially minimum damage. I just think that healing a creature is the least playable interpretation,and is the first one that discussions seem to jump to.

Well, healing is the abstract mathematical interpretation, and neither it, nor dealing damage to yourself make sense practically. (Where is the extra force coming from that turns not enough to injure you into enough to injure you when you get WEAKER? Strength isn't related to resisting damage anywhere else.) The only logical practical implementation is setting the damage to 0. So if people are going purely abstract they get healing, if people include practical interpretation they get 0. Dealing damage to yourself is adding some other method of interpretation to the mix.

[Pex]

But this is based on a false premise where I've said to myself "I must hit 20 within 2 ASIs, and reducing it below that amount has no value for me"

That premise is false. No one would think that. Requiring 0 ASIs instead of 1 is just as valuable as requiring 2 instead of 3, or 1 instead of 2.

My goal is not to need a specific amount of ASIs to hit 20, it's to hit 20 with the fewest ASIs possible. If I rolled 18 I can go a +2 Charisma race and hit 20 with Zero ASIs. If I roll dwarf, I need 1 ASI. This means Dwarf costs me 1 feat/ASI.

If I used point buy and started with 15 instead of 16 or 17 by going with a Charisma race, I need 3 ASIs instead of 2. This means Dwarf costs me 1 feat/ASI.

Cost of going dwarf if you roll: 1 Feat/ASI.

Cost of going dwarf if you point buy: 1 Feat/ASI.

There is no difference. The incentive is exactly the same.

The value is in wanting to play a Dwarf warlock with an eventual 20 CH. Purposely playing a Dwarf I know and accept I don't get a CH boost. I don't care about that. I want to be a Dwarf warlock. That's all that matters. With Point Buy I have no choice but to spend 3 ASI on CH to go from 15 to 20. The desire to play a Dwarf warlock goes down. With rolling, if I'm lucky to get an 18 then I only need one ASI to get to 20. Level 4 I'm golden. A Dwarf warlock I play. In the more likely event I only have a 16, I lump it. Level 4 gets me to 18. I'm happy. Level 8 I get to reevaluate with an interesting decision. Do I really need/want that 20 now or is a feat more prudent based on campaign circumstances. Spell Sniper just might be the Golden Ticket and I can wait for my 20 later and still be happy.

Point Buy level 1-3: 15 CH
Rolling level 1-3: 16 or 18 CH, Winner Rolling

Point Buy level 4-7: 17 CH
Rolling level 4-7: 18 or 20 CH, Winner Rolling

Point Buy level 8-11: 19 CH
Rolling level 8-11: 20 CH or 18 CH & Spell Sniper feat, or 20 CH & Spell Sniper feat, Winner Rolling

Rolling is better for me if I really, really want to play a Dwarf warlock.

[Petrocorus]

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder 15 points either, but I've done personal exercises on the matter in the hypothetical I ever decide to play in a game that uses that low value for the core classes.
How many point do you generally use in PF? What is considered the norm? On the PFSRD, 15 point are said "standard".

[EvadableMoxie]

Rolling is better for me if I really, really want to play a Dwarf warlock.

No, starting with an 18 in your main stat is better for you than starting with a 15 in your main stat. That doesn't stop being true if you aren't playing a dwarf.

Which of course ignores the fact that you won't always roll an 18.

[Talamare]

Diced gives you 6 chances of rolling an 18
6 chances of rolling a 1.6% chance occurrence (4d6DL)
Yet, people treat it like its law when you roll dice. Don't even get me started on the scumbags who "Oh, I rolled these 4x 18 stats when you weren't paying attention"
Hell, even 17s are incredibly rare at only 4.1%. Even with 6 tries, you're unlikely to get that result.
Man, even natural 16s are unlikely with only a 7.2%

A point buy Dwarf Warlock would probably have cleaner stats if he started 14 CHA, and accepted he would need 3 ASI to reach 20. Tho, he might not even need 20 CHA to be effective.
You would just need to play to your advantages, a Mountain Warlock would have Medium Armor. With 14 DEX, He would have effectively 17 AC. Not a bad option for a Warlock

[Theodoxus]

How many point do you generally use in PF? What is considered the norm? On the PFSRD, 15 point are said "standard".

The PF and 5E costs are different, as are the base scores. Plus PF allows you to trade down attribute scores to generate more points. It's like comparing Apples and Pears. (And PF, not having Bounded Accuracy nor Attribute caps, attributes are far more important and affect the game more than 5E.)

With that said, most PF games I've played have been the upper end of optimization - generally 18-24 PB.

[Icewraith]

Diced gives you 6 chances of rolling an 18
6 chances of rolling a 1.6% chance occurrence (4d6DL)
Yet, people treat it like its law when you roll dice. Don't even get me started on the scumbags who "Oh, I rolled these 4x 18 stats when you weren't paying attention"
Hell, even 17s are incredibly rare at only 4.1%. Even with 6 tries, you're unlikely to get that result.
Man, even natural 16s are unlikely with only a 7.2%

A point buy Dwarf Warlock would probably have cleaner stats if he started 14 CHA, and accepted he would need 3 ASI to reach 20. Tho, he might not even need 20 CHA to be effective.
You would just need to play to your advantages, a Mountain Warlock would have Medium Armor. With 14 DEX, He would have effectively 17 AC. Not a bad option for a Warlock

Assuming your numbers are accurate and are for rolling exactly those stats, those percentages should be additive. That is, the chance of rolling a 16, 17, or 18 on 4d6DL is 7.2+4.1+1.6=12.9%
Not rolling a 16 or better in six tries is (1-.129)^6 = .43.

Incidentally, assuming an 18 isn't even that bad- (1-.016)^6 = .908 (rounded) = That's just under a 1 in 10 shot that you have an 18 to work with. Not great odds, but not as small as you're making them sound.

Thus, if you roll stats using 4d6DL, and can always arrange your stats so the highest roll is in Cha, 57% of the time you start with a 16 or better CHA. If all you care about is having one good score for your offensive stat, rolling is almost always going to be better than going PB and starting with a 14, since that calculation doesn't include 15.

[Pex]

How many point do you generally use in PF? What is considered the norm? On the PFSRD, 15 point are said "standard".

If my group uses Point Buy, we alternate campaigns, we use 20 or 25 depending on DM and gameworld expectations. Our main, Golarion "super" fantasy game is dice rolling. The high fantasy campaign (my paladin of Bahamut regularly converses with dragons and is their Ambassador) is 25 points. The more realistic almost but not quite "gritty" game with lots of dungeon crawls is 20 points. I also run a campaign but, with bias, use the 27-25-23 method I've posted a few times among the threads the past year.



No, starting with an 18 in your main stat is better for you than starting with a 15 in your main stat. That doesn't stop being true if you aren't playing a dwarf.

Which of course ignores the fact that you won't always roll an 18.

The original point remains. You're not going to see dwarf warlocks with Point Buy because the math doesn't encourage them. With dice rolling, precisely because of the luck factor of getting an 18 or even 16 dwarf warlocks are more likely to happen given interest in playing such a character. A dwarf warlock is a diverse thing made possible because of dice rolling as opposed to cookie-cutter Point Buy warlocks who are practically always half-elf, tiefling, or (variant) human. More diversity in characters is a reason why someone might prefer dice rolling over point buy, which was the question asked I responded to, why bother to use dice rolling instead of point buy.

[EvadableMoxie]

The original point remains. You're not going to see dwarf warlocks with Point Buy because the math doesn't encourage them.

Which of the three statements below do you disagree with?

1: If you point buy, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

2: If you roll for stats, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

3: 2 = 2.

[RickAllison]

Well, healing is the abstract mathematical interpretation, and neither it, nor dealing damage to yourself make sense practically. (Where is the extra force coming from that turns not enough to injure you into enough to injure you when you get WEAKER? Strength isn't related to resisting damage anywhere else.) The only logical practical implementation is setting the damage to 0. So if people are going purely abstract they get healing, if people include practical interpretation they get 0. Dealing damage to yourself is adding some other method of interpretation to the mix.

Keeping in mind that the original comparison was not meant to be serious, but more pointing out the rather ridiculous nature of leveling putting you closer to death. Just as with the attack, it makes more sense for the health raise to then be a minimum of 0. The low Con means all those lovely diseases in the Monster Manual can kill you very easily by simply reducing your health anyway. Not to mention that Massive Damage becomes the rule rather than the exception.

[Talamare]

The original point remains. You're not going to see dwarf warlocks with Point Buy because the math doesn't encourage them. With dice rolling, precisely because of the luck factor of getting an 18 or even 16 dwarf warlocks are more likely to happen given interest in playing such a character. A dwarf warlock is a diverse thing made possible because of dice rolling as opposed to cookie-cutter Point Buy warlocks who are practically always half-elf, tiefling, or (variant) human. More diversity in characters is a reason why someone might prefer dice rolling over point buy, which was the question asked I responded to, why bother to use dice rolling instead of point buy.

Math encourages them just fine
14 STR, 14 DEX, 13 CON, 14 CHA
16/14/15/14 after bonuses
Take Resilient CON feat to make CON even and get saving throws on CON for concentration.
You have proficiency with medium armor due to Dwarf. Giving you 17 AC

Perfectly good Blacklock

[Icewraith]

Which of the three statements below do you disagree with?

1: If you point buy, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

2: If you roll for stats, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

3: 2 = 2.

If you roll for stats and roll one stat well, the ASI cost to get to 20 goes from three under point buy (which is painful) to either two (which is still significant) or one (which is tolerable).

This is important because you can really only count on seeing one or two ASIs before the campaign ends or breaks down. If it only takes one ASI to maximize your offensive stat, you're free to take a build enhancing feat, which should improve your gameplay. Needing to spend three ASIs to get to 20 when another race only needs to spend two is significant, whereas if you only need to spend 1-2 ASIs vs 0-1 you will probably get to enjoy the benefits of a maxed offensive stat (or a build defining feat) for at least some of the campaign.

[EvadableMoxie]

This is important because you can really only count on seeing one or two ASIs before the campaign ends or breaks down. If it only takes one ASI to maximize your offensive stat, you're free to take a build enhancing feat, which should improve your gameplay. Needing to spend three ASIs to get to 20 when another race only needs to spend two is significant, whereas if you only need to spend 1-2 ASIs vs 0-1 you will probably get to enjoy the benefits of a maxed offensive stat (or a build defining feat) for at least some of the campaign.


There's no prize for hitting 20 in a stat. The bonus for going from 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 is exactly the same as the bonus from going from 18 to 20 is. You become 5% more likely to succeed each time your stat goes up by 2.

If the campaign ends before you max your stat then you've taken the exact same penalty if you went Dwarf instead of, say, Half-elf, a -5% chance to succeed. This is true if you go from 16 to 14 or 20 to 18. It's the same penalty. -5%. It hasn't changed.

If the campaign doesn't end before you max your stat then you've taken the exact same penalty, -1 feat, because it took you 1 more ASI to hit 20. It's the same. 1 feat. It hasn't changed.

There's no difference.

[Pex]

Which of the three four statements below do you disagree with?

1: If you point buy, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

2: If you roll for stats, you are not encouraged to play dwarf due to losing 2 charisma compared to a race with +2 charisma.

3: 2 = 2.

4: I like people being condescending when we disagree.

2 & 4, with 1 & 2 being specifically about playing a dwarf of a class with CH as its prime, not dwarves in general.

[EvadableMoxie]

4: I like people being condescending when we disagree.

2 & 4, with 1 & 2 being specifically about playing a dwarf of a class with CH as its prime, not dwarves in general.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I am trying to understand your position, but I'm not getting it.

You say you are only talking about playing dwarf as a class with charisma as primary, but class doesn't change what stats a race gives. It doesn't matter if charisma is the primary class or not. Either way, if you go dwarf, you have 18 charisma. If you go half-elf, you have 20. 20 minus 18 is 2, for a Warlock or a barbarian or a Rogue.

Do you not believe that Half-elf gets +2 charisma and Dwarf doesn't? Do you not believe that 20 minus 18 is 2? Do you believe the classes primary stat changes the stats races give? If you don't believe any of those things then I don't understand what it is that you do believe that is leading you to a different conclusion.

I'm not asking sarcastically, I really do not comprehend what it is you are trying to disagree with about this. From my perspective, you are telling me that 2 does not equal 2.

[Pex]

The point is I want to play a dwarf warlock. I don't care what any other race provides for Charisma. With Point Buy it takes 3 ASI to get a 20 CH dwarf warlock, level 12. That's discouraging to have to wait so long, so either I don't play a warlock (or bard or sorcerer) or don't play a dwarf. Half-elves, humans, and tieflings get CH 20 at level 8. Ergo, Point Buy influences players to only play those races when playing a warlock. Technically a dragonborn could too, but players tend to be more hyped of the +2 ST and think warrior class despite Bladelock. Nevertheless, dwarf and warlock do not look like a good fit.

With dice rolling, it doesn't matter what other races get bonuses to Charisma because I'm still wanting to play a dwarf warlock. I can get lucky, roll the 18, and be all happy happy joy joy at level 4, not 12. In the more likely event I only get a 16 to put in Charisma, that's still already better than what Point Buy would have given me as a dwarf warlock which is what I want to play I don't give a Three Gorges what other races get for Charisma. I'm happy joy at level 4 for the 18 where as in Point Buy I had to wait until level 8. By the time level 8 does come around, I've been playing 8 levels worth of dice rolling dwarf warlock better than what point buy dwarf warlock could have given me and still not giving a Hoover what other races get for Charisma. I get it I could have played a half-elf warlock and gotten 20 CH at level 4, but I wanted to play a dwarf warlock to be different. I fully accept and be ok with it I reach 20 CH as a dwarf at least 4 levels later than a half-elf. Half-elf warlocks are dime a dozen. It's the unusual combo of being a dwarf and a warlock that's important, and dice rolling means the math behind such a character is more attractive vs point buy.

Half-elf warlocks will always be ahead of dwarf warlocks in reaching pinnacles. I don't care. "Everyone" is a half-elf (tiefling/human) warlock. Cookie-cutter. What I do care about is that dice rolling dwarf warlocks are ahead of point buy dwarf warlocks in reaching pinnacles. Playing a dwarf warlock is more unique which dice rolling makes a more attractive possibility compared to point buy for purposes of playing a dwarf warlock what other races get is irrelevant.

[Segev]

Half-elf warlocks will always be ahead of dwarf warlocks in reaching pinnacles. I don't care. "Everyone" is a half-elf (tiefling/human) warlock. Cookie-cutter. What I do care about is that dice rolling dwarf warlocks are ahead of point buy dwarf warlocks in reaching pinnacles. Playing a dwarf warlock is more unique which dice rolling makes a more attractive possibility compared to point buy for purposes of playing a dwarf warlock what other races get is irrelevant.

I believe the counterpoint, the question that you're not answering that is being asked is: what happens if you roll poorly and don't get anything above a 14?

[EvadableMoxie]

The point is I want to play a dwarf warlock. I don't care what any other race provides for Charisma. With Point Buy it takes 3 ASI to get a 20 CH dwarf warlock, level 12. That's discouraging to have to wait so long, so either I don't play a warlock (or bard or sorcerer) or don't play a dwarf. Half-elves, humans, and tieflings get CH 20 at level 8. Ergo, Point Buy influences players to only play those races when playing a warlock. Technically a dragonborn could too, but players tend to be more hyped of the +2 ST and think warrior class despite Bladelock. Nevertheless, dwarf and warlock do not look like a good fit.

I think you are focusing on what it feels like and not really paying attention to the math. It feels good to hit 20, and it feels bad to be further away from 20. But when you look at it purely logically, via the numbers, you realize that you work with whatever you are given, and if you are given X amount of charisma, the only decision you have to make is if the bonuses from going dwarf are worth not having X+2. It's the same decision regardless of how far away 20 charisma is, because each increase of charisma gets the same thing, a 5% higher chance of success, regardless of what your charisma currently is. Moving from 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 is equally valuable as moving from 18 to 20. Therefore, your motivation to go Dwarf or not go Dwarf should remain the same, because it doesn't matter where on the charisma scale you are. Dwarf is either worth 2 charisma or it isn't.

If going dwarf means you never hit 20, so be it. You're behind by 1 ASI/Feat either way. It doesn't matter if the campaign ends with you at 18 charisma when a Half-elf would have been at 20, or if it ends with you are 20 down one feat. It's the same thing in the end.

So, I think it's fair to say that some people might restrict themselves when using dice rolls, if they have particular taboos against playing certain characters with certain starting stats, but I don't think we can project that onto the entire player base. We think about it in two very different ways, clearly, and there are probably even more points of view out there.

I also think you are ignoring the flip side of dice rolling. People can get bad rolls that then limit them or prevent them from playing the builds or characters they really want to make. Point buy insures you can think up a character in advance and know you can play it when the time comes without having to get lucky with the dice. It takes creativity to make it work sometimes, and you really have to consider what stats are important to you, but it works.

[Pex]

I believe the counterpoint, the question that you're not answering that is being asked is: what happens if you roll poorly and don't get anything above a 14?

Reroll. You don't have to be enslaved by the rolled array. Alternatively, fine tune. If I roll 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, make one 14 a 16 and the 12 a 10 or a 10 an 8. If I rolled 14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, yes, the inherent luck factor commences, acknowledge the disadvantage of the system but don't resent it and spend the few extra seconds it takes to reroll.

[MaxWilson]

I believe the counterpoint, the question that you're not answering that is being asked is: what happens if you roll poorly and don't get anything above a 14?

Moon Druid!

Or a Sorlock, or potentially a Rogue although I haven't actually tried that one yet. (Rogues don't excite me for some reason--but I think I would try a Swashbuckler.) Low-level fighters are surprisingly good too even with only 14 Dex, thanks to Sharpshooter and Archery.

Try anything SAD.

===================================


Reroll. You don't have to be enslaved by the rolled array. Alternatively, fine tune. If I roll 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, make one 14 a 16 and the 12 a 10 or a 10 an 8. If I rolled 14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, yes, the inherent luck factor commences, acknowledge the disadvantage of the system but don't resent it and spend the few extra seconds it takes to reroll.

14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8 looks like a Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Soldier Sharpshooter Fighter to my eye. Your basic special forces/SWAT ranger. Speaks mostly in grunts, kills orcs from afar. Pragmatic about magic (Eldritch Knight). Can double as a scout or a tank when necessary. Call him Malachai the Ranger. Has a drinking problem, and struggles with kleptomania but has it mostly under control. Will cut the thrown on a fallen enemy just to keep them down permanently--finds zombies horrifyingly nightmarish for related reasons, responds with fear and loathing. Neutral with Good-ish tendencies where children are concerned. Maybe not the most exciting character in the world, but a solid supporting character, and all it takes is the right event to suddenly turn him into someone or something very memorable. (E.g. finding and bonding with Blackrazor; getting bitten by a werewolf.) Blank slates sometimes make good beginnings to a story.

I'd never want Malachai to be my sole PC for years at a time; but I wouldn't mind having him in my character tree.

[Nicodiemus]

I think this (and many of the other arguments I've read in this forum) ultimately boils down to divergent opinions on what a "fun" character, and process of building said character, is. Optimizers for the most part amuse me, because I am a personality driven gamer, not a number cruncher. I'm sure they are amused by me and my willingness to play VH so much when a high elf would make a "better" wizard or a halfling would make a "better" rogue. It's all a matter of opinion as I hate trying to RP a race I can't take serious because they're the size of a 7 year old.

Also- one of my most memorable characters was one I had absolutely no say in creating. My group had wrecked our DMs campaign at the beginning by sharing info we were supposed to keep hidden. This led to him scrapping the campaign and refusing to DM for us for over a year. After relentless badgering he agreed to run a game for us on one condition: he would create our characters for us. And he hosed us epicly. Not only mediocre arrays, but the choices he made for us race and class wise were done maliciously with our greatest dislikes in mind. Mine was a half-elven scout (2nd edition thief kit) when I was used to elven fighter mages. But, by the end of the campaign I grew to really enjoy the story we had created with these handicap characters and its my most memorable gaming experience to date.

The moral being- everyone views what is fun differently. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong. But. Maybe step outside your comfort zone occasionally. It might be more fun than you think.

[Pex]

Moon Druid!

Or a Sorlock, or potentially a Rogue although I haven't actually tried that one yet. (Rogues don't excite me for some reason--but I think I would try a Swashbuckler.) Low-level fighters are surprisingly good too even with only 14 Dex, thanks to Sharpshooter and Archery.

Try anything SAD.

===================================



14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8 looks like a Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Soldier Sharpshooter Fighter to my eye. Your basic special forces/SWAT ranger. Speaks mostly in grunts, kills orcs from afar. Pragmatic about magic (Eldritch Knight). Can double as a scout or a tank when necessary. Call him Malachai the Ranger. Has a drinking problem, and struggles with kleptomania but has it mostly under control. Will cut the thrown on a fallen enemy just to keep them down permanently--finds zombies horrifyingly nightmarish for related reasons, responds with fear and loathing. Neutral with Good-ish tendencies where children are concerned. Maybe not the most exciting character in the world, but a solid supporting character, and all it takes is the right event to suddenly turn him into someone or something very memorable. (E.g. finding and bonding with Blackrazor; getting bitten by a werewolf.) Blank slates sometimes make good beginnings to a story.

I'd never want Malachai to be my sole PC for years at a time; but I wouldn't mind having him in my character tree.

And be taken out of combat by any saving throw he needs to make. Maybe the second one. The math matters. Yes, this means I also think the book proposed 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8, array is bad. One 8 is not terrible. Two is pushing it and you need something to compensate like at least 18 16+ 12+ 12+ 8 8. I can get over it if one of the 12s is 10 or 11. Three 8s the character is doomed where doomed does not equal autokilled, just taken out of the combat more often than not. The other three scores could be 20, and the character is still doomed.

[MaxWilson]

And be taken out of combat by any saving throw he needs to make. Maybe the second one. The math matters. Yes, this means I also think the book proposed 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8, array is bad. One 8 is not terrible. Two is pushing it and you need something to compensate like at least 18 16+ 12+ 12+ 8 8. I can get over it if one of the 12s is 10 or 11. Three 8s the character is doomed where doomed does not equal autokilled, just taken out of the combat more often than not. The other three scores could be 20, and the character is still doomed.

You exaggerate the problem. His Dex save is decent and his Con save is fine due to proficiency, which leaves Wisdom as the only major save that is bad. 90% of the time there is no difference between Wis 8 and Wis 12 when it comes to saving throws.

The best defense is never making those saves in the first place, which is why he's a Sharpshooter. When the Banshee does her death wail or her frightening gaze, or the Umber Hulk starts confusing people, guess who doesn't have to make a save? Anyone more than 30' away.

[Talamare]

Reroll. You don't have to be enslaved by the rolled array. Alternatively, fine tune. If I roll 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, make one 14 a 16 and the 12 a 10 or a 10 an 8. If I rolled 14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, yes, the inherent luck factor commences, acknowledge the disadvantage of the system but don't resent it and spend the few extra seconds it takes to reroll.

If you're just going to keep rerolling until you get what you want, then skip the middle man and just assign yourself 18/18/18/18/18/18

[Nicodiemus]

Nah. Fibonacci all the way

[Petrocorus]

Nah. Fibonacci all the way

I'd like to know how you would use that.

[Nicodiemus]

Lol. Well it wasn't meant to be serious, but way up thread when people were suggesting a tessaract (Sp?) for arrays I said why not use Fibonacci starting at 3 to make the "perfect" character. That would give you 3,5,8,13,21,34. One god-like stat balanced by two that are near cabbage like in usefulness. Let the fun begin! ;-)

[Segev]

Reroll. You don't have to be enslaved by the rolled array. Alternatively, fine tune. If I roll 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, make one 14 a 16 and the 12 a 10 or a 10 an 8. If I rolled 14, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, yes, the inherent luck factor commences, acknowledge the disadvantage of the system but don't resent it and spend the few extra seconds it takes to reroll.

At that point, you're not really treating rolling as a "fair" method. The "fairness" in it is that you risk coming up above or below what you could for point-buy. (Of course, if the DM is okay with it, that's fine; he probably is only using point-buy as a stop-gap backup.)

[Pex]

If you're just going to keep rerolling until you get what you want, then skip the middle man and just assign yourself 18/18/18/18/18/18

With Point Buy, just give everyone 75 points where 16 costs 11 points, 17 costs 13 points, and so on up to 20.

I like Ray Bolger, but not this much.

[Segev]

With Point Buy, just give everyone 75 points where 16 costs 11 points, 17 costs 13 points, and so on up to 20.

I like Ray Bolger, but not this much.

False analogy. Point-buy at the fixed point and one rolled set of stats are considered equivalent generation methods. If you get to keep "re-doing" your rolls, THEN you would have to raise the number of points assigned to maintain anything approaching parity.

[Pex]

False analogy. Point-buy at the fixed point and one rolled set of stats are considered equivalent generation methods. If you get to keep "re-doing" your rolls, THEN you would have to raise the number of points assigned to maintain anything approaching parity.

False analogy = False argument.

I have never argued all scores must be 18. You can't have it both ways.

[CantigThimble]

False analogy = False argument.

I have never argued all scores must be 18. You can't have it both ways.

Is there any difference between your method and the player just coming up with the set of ability scores they think fit the character best and using those?

If my plan is to have a dwarf warlock with at least 16 charisma to start with why don't I just write down a 16 or 17 for that, set my strength to 14 because I want to multiclass into fighter at some point, set my dexterity and constitution to 12 because I want decent scores there and then put my wisdom to 10 and my intelligence to 8 because it might be fun to have a low mental stat and it seems balanced to have a couple low scores.

If you reroll anything that doesn't fit your preplanned character concept then why not just pick the scores you think you should have?

[Pex]

Is there any difference between your method and the player just coming up with the set of ability scores they think fit the character best and using those?

If my plan is to have a dwarf warlock with at least 16 charisma to start with why don't I just write down a 16 or 17 for that, set my strength to 14 because I want to multiclass into fighter at some point, set my dexterity and constitution to 12 because I want decent scores there and then put my wisdom to 10 and my intelligence to 8 because it might be fun to have a low mental stat and it seems balanced to have a couple low scores.

If you reroll anything that doesn't fit your preplanned character concept then why not just pick the scores you think you should have?

Some people actually do that. Not even Point Buy, just everyone chooses scores. Point Buy the concept is fine, though I'm not a fan of the inherent cookie-cutter aspect of it just like some people are not a fan of the inherent luck factor of dice rolling. Its implementation in 5E is what I abhor. I'm ok with it in Pathfinder. Other people roll scores first then come up with a character concept based on the rolls. The reroll or fine tuning is the compensation of the inherent luck factor. It's not to get all 18s; it's to get something decent. The compensation for Point Buy is to increase the number of points you have to spend on scores. Some people do that as well, and in 5E's case specifically allow for purchase a score above 15. I categorically object to the idea that a 1st level character with an 18 is an abomination to be avoided and condemn forever 5E Point Buy for facilitating that notion. I only condemn the Point Buy, not 5E because Point Buy is the variant. Dice rolling is the rule which allows for an 18 at first level either by rolling it or with racial modifiers should one be fortunate.

[Segev]

False analogy = False argument.

I have never argued all scores must be 18. You can't have it both ways.

Neither did I accuse you of it.

I said that, if you are going to keep re-rolling your stats when they don't come up sufficiently good compared to the points, then you are not using a system that is fair compared to points-based.

The argument I believed you were making was that rolled was better despite being equally fair because points gets more reliable control, but rolled can give you that 18 which is superior due to fewer ability increases being needed to reach 20. That rolling encouraged playing sub-optimal races because that 18 can still be a 16, while points can't go that high.

The implication I was seeing was that this was not due to rolling generating higher stats in general than points, but simply because the higher variance made it possible.

If you just keep re-rolling the stats until you like them, though, (even if your sole criterion is "at least one 18") then you're effectively comparing a generation system guaranteed to generate higher stats in general to one that is not so guaranteed.

It is no longer comparing apples to oranges, but instead comparing apples to grapefruits. (Theoretically, points to rolling is apples to oranges: different results but comparable in scale.)

Increasing the points granted and raising the cap to 18 by adding point values for 16, 17, and 18 would be needed to make a fair comparison to a multi-rolled statline that insisted on a score in that range before it was accepted.

[Icewraith]

Neither did I accuse you of it.

I said that, if you are going to keep re-rolling your stats when they don't come up sufficiently good compared to the points, then you are not using a system that is fair compared to points-based.

The argument I believed you were making was that rolled was better despite being equally fair because points gets more reliable control, but rolled can give you that 18 which is superior due to fewer ability increases being needed to reach 20. That rolling encouraged playing sub-optimal races because that 18 can still be a 16, while points can't go that high.

The implication I was seeing was that this was not due to rolling generating higher stats in general than points, but simply because the higher variance made it possible.

If you just keep re-rolling the stats until you like them, though, (even if your sole criterion is "at least one 18") then you're effectively comparing a generation system guaranteed to generate higher stats in general to one that is not so guaranteed.

It is no longer comparing apples to oranges, but instead comparing apples to grapefruits. (Theoretically, points to rolling is apples to oranges: different results but comparable in scale.)

Increasing the points granted and raising the cap to 18 by adding point values for 16, 17, and 18 would be needed to make a fair comparison to a multi-rolled statline that insisted on a score in that range before it was accepted.

Note however that this effect can still somewhat be generated in a game by a poorly rolled character having a lower survival chance than a well rolled character. If your character dies in a PB game you're stuck with the same point buy. However there is also the downside that if your well-rolled character dies and cannot be resurrected, you may roll a character with poor stats.

[Zalabim]

Math encourages them just fine
14 STR, 14 DEX, 13 CON, 14 CHA
16/14/15/14 after bonuses
Take Resilient CON feat to make CON even and get saving throws on CON for concentration.
You have proficiency with medium armor due to Dwarf. Giving you 17 AC

Perfectly good Blacklock

My standard example is 15 Str, 14 Cha, 12 Con, and 13/10/8 between the other three stats and take Heavily Armored to make Str even. Deal more damage than EB at level 1, can take any invocation you want at level 2 since you already have armor and a good attack, the Pact of the Maul (more dwarfy) is again stronger than EB at level 3, and you get both 18 Str and up to 18 AC at level 4 (probably 16/17, due to cost).

I do wonder how the higher HP and Con save works out, too. Either way, it's plausible to play a Dwarf Warlock. It just won't play the same way as a half-elf warlock, and I appreciate that.

[Pex]

Neither did I accuse you of it.



But the response I was responding to, which you then responded with "false analogy", did.

Rerolling and fine tuning is only compensation for the inherent luck factor. It's not to get an 18. It's not to get rid of an 8. It's for the possible unfortunate happenstance all or most scores are so poor the character has a low survival rate or one player's array is out of whack compared to the other players. Dice rolling is not a perfect system and doesn't claim to be. However, it does offer the possibility of interesting arrays you wouldn't get in Point Buy, and for 5E in particular allows for an 18 if you're lucky and scores above 15 without requiring racial modifiers to do it, and I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the latter case I may to want to play a race/class combo where the race does not add anything to the class's primes. If I want to play a dwarf warlock, I shouldn't have to be always limited to 15 Charisma at 1st level.

[Talamare]

or one player's array is out of whack compared to the other players.

Yea, right! I agree completely
Nearly everyone else seemed to have rolled fairly average, and this one guy rolled like 2 18s and a 16.
His array is so "out of whack" compared to the other players, it would only make sense and be fair to everyone else to nerf him down
Oh one guy tho seems to have rolled pretty poorly compared to the average too.
Let's buff him up a bit...

Altho now the guy who we nerfed down is bitching that someone else has slightly higher total after he was nerfed, and won't drop the issue until we nerf the other guy a bit too
and the guys with fairly low scores are hearing this bickering and asks if they can get a bit of a nudge towards those guys level...

damn these "out of whack" scores (and yes, the fallacies were intentional)
if only there was a system that would lead to everyone being able to create vastly different characters while still having similar power levels


Honestly its not point buy NOR rolling that creates cookie cutter builds, its Race bonuses and Online Guides

[Thematthew]

Personally I allow rerolls when no stat is above 13 or the total Stat mod is 0 or less, then I let everyone choose from all the rolls.

[Segev]

I've oft thought it would be interesting to try developing a system where you roll your stats, but the lower any given stat, the more "perks" you got related thematically to having that particular stat be low, whether directly or in some indirect, stereotypical way.

The trouble I usually run into is figuring out enough things to be the "perks" while making them interesting and not ludicrous. But examples might be, for example, that a trait like "Odious" would be available for people with less-than-stellar charisma. IF you have it, the lower your Charisma, the better it works. How well you make people like you, believe in or trust you, or fear or respect you is, obviously, based on Charisma. But if you are Odious, the lower your Charisma is, the better you are at deliberately grossing out, creeping out, and driving off people. You can make people too uncomfortable to want to DEAL with this situation.

Or you could be Cynical, which also derives benefit from low Charisma: the lower your Charisma, the more bitter you are about how the world treats you coldly, and the less YOU trust people or believe they would ever have anything to do with you, making you more resistant to charms and lies and the like. (Higher Charisma inhibits this, because it's hard to think others don't like you or are against you when you can so easily turn them around.)


Or, for Wisdom, you could be Impulsive: the lower your Wisdom, the better you roll for initiative when you call for it, but you're stuck with whatever action you say you're going to take, even if it turns out you totally misread the situation. Or perhaps you've got Dumb Luck - you try the most monumentally foolish things, but fortune favors your foolery and the lower your wisdom, the more likely some quirk of fate will step in to help you out.


Low Constitution might let you pick up "Overweight," which makes you bigger and heavier - and maybe better able to act in certain ways dependent on that - the lower your Constitution is. You get out of breath more easily, and you're not going to be enduring pain very well, but that's because your massive body is already straining your underdeveloped vascular system.

Low Strength might let you be a Waif, with the lower your strength the lighter you are and the more you can use that to your advantage.

That kind of thing. Like I said, woefully underdeveloped idea, but one that I find interesting as a possible way to "balance" a rolled-stat system. You're effectively giving and taking on all of your stats, though higher may be better, lower gets you unusual perks.

[N810]

Brilliant ideas, this would make for some very interesting homebrew variant rules. :smallcool:
Maybe if all you're combined stats are below a certain threshold, you could perhaps get a free feat on the first level. (it would have to be pretty bad though)

[pwykersotz]

I've oft thought it would be interesting to try developing a system where you roll your stats, but the lower any given stat, the more "perks" you got related thematically to having that particular stat be low, whether directly or in some indirect, stereotypical way.

The trouble I usually run into is figuring out enough things to be the "perks" while making them interesting and not ludicrous. But examples might be, for example, that a trait like "Odious" would be available for people with less-than-stellar charisma. IF you have it, the lower your Charisma, the better it works. How well you make people like you, believe in or trust you, or fear or respect you is, obviously, based on Charisma. But if you are Odious, the lower your Charisma is, the better you are at deliberately grossing out, creeping out, and driving off people. You can make people too uncomfortable to want to DEAL with this situation.

Or you could be Cynical, which also derives benefit from low Charisma: the lower your Charisma, the more bitter you are about how the world treats you coldly, and the less YOU trust people or believe they would ever have anything to do with you, making you more resistant to charms and lies and the like. (Higher Charisma inhibits this, because it's hard to think others don't like you or are against you when you can so easily turn them around.)


Or, for Wisdom, you could be Impulsive: the lower your Wisdom, the better you roll for initiative when you call for it, but you're stuck with whatever action you say you're going to take, even if it turns out you totally misread the situation. Or perhaps you've got Dumb Luck - you try the most monumentally foolish things, but fortune favors your foolery and the lower your wisdom, the more likely some quirk of fate will step in to help you out.


Low Constitution might let you pick up "Overweight," which makes you bigger and heavier - and maybe better able to act in certain ways dependent on that - the lower your Constitution is. You get out of breath more easily, and you're not going to be enduring pain very well, but that's because your massive body is already straining your underdeveloped vascular system.

Low Strength might let you be a Waif, with the lower your strength the lighter you are and the more you can use that to your advantage.

That kind of thing. Like I said, woefully underdeveloped idea, but one that I find interesting as a possible way to "balance" a rolled-stat system. You're effectively giving and taking on all of your stats, though higher may be better, lower gets you unusual perks.

This...sounds fascinating. I'm intrigued.

[Pex]

Devil is in the implementation and details but the concept is intriguing.

Something to suggest for 6E. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

In one game where I wanted dice rolls, but I also specifically wanted the characters to be very exceptional I had people do 5d6b3 7 times, take the 6 rolls that you want. But I specifically wanted hero of legend attributes at the start.

[djreynolds]

Just a quick question, if my players choose to roll dice for their ability scores, should I then let them min max using the point buy system? Or have them use either the exact rolls or the stanard point buy system.

Either they all roll, or take the standard array or your special array. Players get jealous about stats, it can be game affecting or effecting, which ever one.

If your player insist on kicking a** just add 2 to every stat in the standard array. Or give them one 18.

[Sigreid]

Either they all roll, or take the standard array or your special array. Players get jealous about stats, it can be game affecting or effecting, which ever one.

If your player insist on kicking a** just add 2 to every stat in the standard array. Or give them one 18.

I concur. One or the other, I don't think they mix well and you'll bust everything if they can do both together.

Something that I didn't see mentioned in the posts I read, I think that array, point buy and die rolling are meant to be statistically the same over many characters. I think the standard array is basically an average set of dice rolls for people who don't want to risk going lower.

[Talamare]

I concur. One or the other, I don't think they mix well and you'll bust everything if they can do both together.

Something that I didn't see mentioned in the posts I read, I think that array, point buy and die rolling are meant to be statistically the same over many characters. I think the standard array is basically an average set of dice rolls for people who don't want to risk going lower.

Actually, Point Buy is mathematically worse than Rolling. I think I read that if they had given Point Buy like 30, instead of 27.
It would help if they let us start with 16 as well, even if it costed a crazy high amount of point buy. Like 4 points...
but if it did both of the above, you would basically only see 16/15/14/9/8/8 builds or 16/13/13/13/10/8 for MAD builds. (Racial makes one of them even, Feat makes the other 2)

[Talamare]

I thought about it a lot, and I think I hate Rolling for scores even more than I did in 3e

Mainly because ASI and Feats overlap. If 2 people roll for stats, one guy gets God tier stats and one guy gets Garbage tier stats
It literally means that the God tier guy will need to spend less ASI/Feats on finishing off his stats at 20, then have a huge selection of really awesome, game changing character defining feats
While the Garbage stats guy will need to spend most of his ASI just getting his stats back to decent, and maybe not even get a real chance of getting any feats for his character...

Imagine if rolling for stats was really just a Rolling for number of ASI/Feats you can select at level one
No seriously, just think about it like that for a moment since it's honestly pretty accurate

Simply roll a d6, that's how many Extra ASI at lv1 you get~! Enjoy
Oh, everyone else on the table rolled a 5 or 6 and you rolled a 1...
Oh well, it was technically completely fair. Everyone generated characters using the same method.
Enjoy your next several months of playing that...

[Sigreid]

Late to the party, but I say strictly one or the other. People who want to roll should know up front that they are taking a risk, and sometimes that means playing a character with a stat of 4.

Edit: haha, I didn't realize I'd already commented. To the above poster, if people don't play what they roll, it becomes really highly slanted. Rolling often produces a pretty exploitable weakness.

[JoeJ]

I thought about it a lot, and I think I hate Rolling for scores even more than I did in 3e

Mainly because ASI and Feats overlap. If 2 people roll for stats, one guy gets God tier stats and one guy gets Garbage tier stats
It literally means that the God tier guy will need to spend less ASI/Feats on finishing off his stats at 20, then have a huge selection of really awesome, game changing character defining feats
While the Garbage stats guy will need to spend most of his ASI just getting his stats back to decent, and maybe not even get a real chance of getting any feats for his character...

Imagine if rolling for stats was really just a Rolling for number of ASI/Feats you can select at level one
No seriously, just think about it like that for a moment since it's honestly pretty accurate

Simply roll a d6, that's how many Extra ASI at lv1 you get~! Enjoy
Oh, everyone else on the table rolled a 5 or 6 and you rolled a 1...
Oh well, it was technically completely fair. Everyone generated characters using the same method.
Enjoy your next several months of playing that...

Your analysis assumes that every character needs to raise their stats to some arbitrary level, which is not the case. The bad roller and the good roller can have exactly the same number of "really awesome, game changing character defining feats" if they choose.

[Telok]

I actually enjoy having the occasional low stat or two to base some part of a character's personality around when I roleplay. I've also discovered that I can't make a functional gnome valor bard by 27 point buy without either accepting that it's meaningless in melee after low levels or tanking charisma and not being able to use inspiration dice or most of the spells (the game starts at level 2 and is expected to end around level 11).

Plus I've been rolling stats since the late 80's, point buy just feels boring.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I actually enjoy having the occasional low stat or two to base some part of a character's personality around when I roleplay. I've also discovered that I can't make a functional gnome valor bard by 27 point buy without either accepting that it's meaningless in melee after low levels or tanking charisma and not being able to use inspiration dice or most of the spells (the game starts at level 2 and is expected to end around level 11).

And making a Tiefling Barbarian with point-buy is tricky as well. I don't see your point.

[Telok]

And making a Tiefling Barbarian with point-buy is tricky as well. I don't see your point.

Point buy tends to create similar characters and penalizes you for not picking a race to improve your stats. Smart paladins and charismatic wizards are given worse survivability and fewer options, gnome paladins and dragonborn wizards are given worse survivability and fewer options.

I enjoyed some randomness in character creation and a tight point buy feels like "pick the approved stat/class/race combo or be punished". I just like a bit more character variety than I see with point buy.

[djreynolds]

I concur. One or the other, I don't think they mix well and you'll bust everything if they can do both together.

Something that I didn't see mentioned in the posts I read, I think that array, point buy and die rolling are meant to be statistically the same over many characters. I think the standard array is basically an average set of dice rolls for people who don't want to risk going lower.

The kicker in the game, is the ability cap. You can have all 18's great. I just need a max in my attack or casting stat and in time you are virtually the same. That guy with 15/14/13/12/10/8 will catch up in time and compete. Perhaps will lower saves and skills, but the ability cap makes an even playing field at least in terms of attacking and casting.

Around levels 8 to 12, things will level out. Trust me.

[Talamare]

Point buy tends to create similar characters and penalizes you for not picking a race to improve your stats. Smart paladins and charismatic wizards are given worse survivability and fewer options, gnome paladins and dragonborn wizards are given worse survivability and fewer options.

I enjoyed some randomness in character creation and a tight point buy feels like "pick the approved stat/class/race combo or be punished". I just like a bit more character variety than I see with point buy.

The issue with that isn't Point Buy nor Rolling

It's the races

[Pex]

The issue with that isn't Point Buy nor Rolling

It's the races

It's Point Buy. With Point Buy I can never play a dragonborn wizard with 16 Intelligence at 1st level. Why should that be something to be avoided? With Dice Rolling, it's possible. It's not a guarantee, and it doesn't have to be. It's enough that it's possible. It's not only dragonborn; it's any race that does not provide for a boost in Intelligence. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing a 1st level wizard with only a 15 Intelligence, but neither is there any inherent wrongness with playing a 1st level wizard with a 16 Intelligence yet Point Buy absolutely forbids it for certain races.

[Talamare]

It's Point Buy. With Point Buy I can never play a dragonborn wizard with 16 Intelligence at 1st level. Why should that be something to be avoided? With Dice Rolling, it's possible. It's not a guarantee, and it doesn't have to be. It's enough that it's possible. It's not only dragonborn; it's any race that does not provide for a boost in Intelligence. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing a 1st level wizard with only a 15 Intelligence, but neither is there any inherent wrongness with playing a 1st level wizard with a 16 Intelligence yet Point Buy absolutely forbids it for certain races.

The fact that the mechanical bonus of having slightly higher key attributes contributes more to your selection than the other racial bonuses and/or RP/Flavor reasons.
That means the problem is with Races, not Point Buy.

But why do you feel better with a Elf Rogue than a Dwarf Rogue? Because the Elf Rogue has an ASI spent on a key attribute and the Dwarf Rogue does not.
It literally then means that the Elf Rogue is starting with one more ASI than the Dwarf Rogue. So the fact you don't want to play a Dwarf Rogue, just because of 1 ASI difference.

Which is the same problem you get with rolling, one player will literally start with vastly more ASI than a different player. Except this time the effect can have a much greater magnitude potentially 5-6 ASI difference between 2 players.


Fix the Races, and use Point Buy. Shameless Plug, feel free to check out my Siggy in which I tried to fix the races a little by detaching most of the natural ASI, and granting players an ASI at lv1.

[Telok]

Ok, see, what I'm running across is that I want to replicate an old AD&D character that I ran. He was a gentleman adventurer, smart, educated, could keep up in combat even if he wasn't the best, and could cast some useful spells. Also, gnome. Yes, in AD&D he was a simple fighter illusionist with decent physical stats and above average intelligence. Nothing game breaking.

In 5e the monsters start at +4 to hit, 14 ac, 5 damage, and 15 to 25 hit points. About one in five monsters seems to have either multiattack or something like a poison rider for another +7 to +10 damage. This puts the minimum competence level for spellcasting and melee at +4 to hit, ~7+ damage, 15+ ac, and ~20+ hp. That's the absolute minimum at around level 3 from what I can see. Then about level 10 to 12 it looks like the game expects an 18 in your attack stats, and an 18+ ac for those participating in melee.

So this tells me that at a minimum a valor bard needs 14s in str, dex, con, and chr at level three and the warcaster feat at level four for to pay the gish tax. You can do that with a gnome, but it's at minimum capability and wants about 4 ASI to meet the game's assumptions at level 10 for minimum competency at that level. To bring up the important stats you have to tank another stat. Charisma loses you much of the spellcasting and essentially all of the inspiration dice that are supposed to help the valor bard in combat. Strength means a finesse weapon, which means you pump dex and wear light armor and why are you a valor bard now lore is just as good at combat. Dropping dex means spending another feat on heavy armor so you can't pay the gish tax untill level 8. And dumping con just means you die.

I've tried to build the character as an eldrich knight and a ftr/wiz multiclass too, but those both run into dumping charisma and ending up with social graces equal to Thog the Unwashed Sweaty Horse Barbarian.

Sadly the best I can do with the character concept is a multiclass variant human build. In fact four of the six characters at our table are variant humans because of the ability to have any two stats at 16 and a feat that enables a character concept. Plus everyone has an 8 in either int or chr, except the fighter who has 8s in both of them.

So, yes, I personally feel that point buy limits the ability of the players to play different kinds of characters. And no, homebrew isn't an option here. We're doing round-robin DMs this time and less than half the group has DMing experience so homebrew is off the table for a while. People playing the adventurer league stuff can't use it anyways.

[Pex]

The fact that the mechanical bonus of having slightly higher key attributes contributes more to your selection than the other racial bonuses and/or RP/Flavor reasons.
That means the problem is with Races, not Point Buy.

But why do you feel better with a Elf Rogue than a Dwarf Rogue? Because the Elf Rogue has an ASI spent on a key attribute and the Dwarf Rogue does not.
It literally then means that the Elf Rogue is starting with one more ASI than the Dwarf Rogue. So the fact you don't want to play a Dwarf Rogue, just because of 1 ASI difference.

Which is the same problem you get with rolling, one player will literally start with vastly more ASI than a different player. Except this time the effect can have a much greater magnitude potentially 5-6 ASI difference between 2 players.


Fix the Races, and use Point Buy. Shameless Plug, feel free to check out my Siggy in which I tried to fix the races a little by detaching most of the natural ASI, and granting players an ASI at lv1.

I've been through this already in this thread. What other races get is irrelevant. I don't give a Hoover an elf gets a bonus to DX. If I want to play a dwarf rogue, Dice Rolling allows me the possibility of a 16 in DX. It is absolutely irrelevant to me had I played an elf that 16 I rolled would become an 18. I would want to be playing a dwarf rogue with at least a 16 DX at 1st level or a dragonborn wizard with 16 IN or a halfling barbarian with a 16 strength. That can never happen in Point Buy. With Dice Rolling, I can. The problem, therefore, is in Point Buy.

One could house rule allowing for purchasing scores above 15 and give a higher point buy value. Then I can use Point Buy without an issue if I really really want to play a dragonborn wizard with a 16 Intelligence at first level by spending the points on it, and I still don't give a Three Gorges I could have saved some points by playing a human instead and applying its ability score bonus to intelligence.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever that because of the math elves have an inherent advantage over dwarves in being a rogue and humans have an inherent advantage over dragonborns in being a wizard. Hip, hip, hooray for the elf and human. I'm still wanting to play a dwarf rogue or dragonborn wizard with at least a 16 in the prime stat, and I'm also not giving an Aswan they don't give a racial bonus to the prime stat score. Point Buy forbids it. Dice Rolling permits it.

[Lines]

I've been through this already in this thread. What other races get is irrelevant. I don't give a Hoover an elf gets a bonus to DX. If I want to play a dwarf rogue, Dice Rolling allows me the possibility of a 16 in DX. It is absolutely irrelevant to me had I played an elf that 16 I rolled would become an 18. I would want to be playing a dwarf rogue with at least a 16 DX at 1st level or a dragonborn wizard with 16 IN or a halfling barbarian with a 16 strength. That can never happen in Point Buy. With Dice Rolling, I can. The problem, therefore, is in Point Buy.

One could house rule allowing for purchasing scores above 15 and give a higher point buy value. Then I can use Point Buy without an issue if I really really want to play a dragonborn wizard with a 16 Intelligence at first level by spending the points on it, and I still don't give a Three Gorges I could have saved some points by playing a human instead and applying its ability score bonus to intelligence.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever that because of the math elves have an inherent advantage over dwarves in being a rogue and humans have an inherent advantage over dragonborns in being a wizard. Hip, hip, hooray for the elf and human. I'm still wanting to play a dwarf rogue or dragonborn wizard with at least a 16 in the prime stat, and I'm also not giving an Aswan they don't give a racial bonus to the prime stat score. Point Buy forbids it. Dice Rolling permits it.

So what do you do if you only roll <16?

[Pex]

So what do you do if you only roll <16?

Depends on mood.

Lump it and play what I want anyway.

Play something else and don't resent it.

Check with DM to allow for a reroll if bad luck was with me where the array just doesn't work no matter what or more likely increase a score by lowering another.

I don't need a guarantee. It's enough the possibility exists.

[djreynolds]

15 is fine, my wizard had that. You'll survive. Lean on your party till then. "Roll" better on your attacks.

[JoeJ]

15 is fine, my wizard had that. You'll survive. Lean on your party till then. "Roll" better on your attacks.

You'll also survive if you roll lower ability scores than the person sitting next to you.

[Lines]

You'll also survive if you roll lower ability scores than the person sitting next to you.

Doesn't make it fair.

[Zalabim]

Ok, see, what I'm running across is that I want to replicate an old AD&D character that I ran. He was a gentleman adventurer, smart, educated, could keep up in combat even if he wasn't the best, and could cast some useful spells. Also, gnome. Yes, in AD&D he was a simple fighter illusionist with decent physical stats and above average intelligence. Nothing game breaking.

So this tells me that at a minimum a valor bard needs 14s in str, dex, con, and chr at level three and the warcaster feat at level four for to pay the gish tax. You can do that with a gnome, but it's at minimum capability and wants about 4 ASI to meet the game's assumptions at level 10 for minimum competency at that level. To bring up the important stats you have to tank another stat. Charisma loses you much of the spellcasting and essentially all of the inspiration dice that are supposed to help the valor bard in combat. Strength means a finesse weapon, which means you pump dex and wear light armor and why are you a valor bard now lore is just as good at combat. Dropping dex means spending another feat on heavy armor so you can't pay the gish tax untill level 8. And dumping con just means you die.

Forest Gnome Valor Bard? 10 Str, 15+1 Dex, 13 Con, 12+2 Int, 8 Wis, 14 Cha, and that's just standard array. You don't have to take Warcaster. You play a valor bard because that gets you better armor until your Dexterity is higher, Shield Proficiency (not that it counts for anything), and an extra attack at 6. This should be playable, if you want to be a wide-eyed wanderer from the whimsical woods who watches the world with wonder.

[JoeJ]

Doesn't make it fair.

Nor does it make it unfair.

[UberMagus]

There is little in the game less fun than being the gimpy low-roller having to be carried.
Now, if you have at least one good score(15+), that's different, but if your high score is 13 because you've got some nasty bad luck that day, you're gonna be left in the dust. RP can make up for some, but when the dice decide so much, having terrible modifiers can ruin a lot of the fun.

It can be a blast to play that character with a couple really bad scores, but it sucks to play the character without a single good one. ESPECIALLY if you have someone who rolled as lucky as you did unlucky. I like point-buy, because it keeps everybody on the same page, and doesn't end up a game of "carry me, senpai!"

If you want higher scores, allow point-buy to break 15, and give a couple more points, or let your players think up some cool variants. Maybe make the secondary score on the Dragonborn tied to his ancestry? Silver/black give the +1 Cha(nice/sly), black/copper gives Dex, Gold/green gives Int. Something like that? Bring in neat subraces, OR just make the secondary +1 floatable. Yes, your half-orc is really strong, due to his size, but he was a smooth talker, so that +1 goes to Cha. ::shrugs::
The big buff is still tied to race, but the secondary is flexible and individual.

[Telok]

Forest Gnome Valor Bard? 10 Str, 15+1 Dex, 13 Con, 12+2 Int, 8 Wis, 14 Cha, and that's just standard array. You don't have to take Warcaster. You play a valor bard because that gets you better armor until your Dexterity is higher, Shield Proficiency (not that it counts for anything), and an extra attack at 6. This should be playable, if you want to be a wide-eyed wanderer from the whimsical woods who watches the world with wonder.
Except I don't want a wide-eyed wanderer from the whimsical woods. I want an educated gentleman adventurer who doesn't fall over in a stiff breeze and can cast more than just evocation and abjuration spells.

At which point why am I playing a valor bard? The only thing they get in that set up is a shield and extra attack, plus we're back at 15 hit points at second level which means we can't survive melee combat. I also re-read the bard inspiration, valor can't use it's dice to benefit itself in combat. So fighter1/lore bard++ rock gnome with s:15 d:10 c:14 i:12 w:8 c:15 is better. Better armor, better attacks with one ASI, better hp, cutting words to support itself in combat, and the magic secrets at 7 instead of 10. It's still looking for warcaster or resilient(con) for those concentration spells so that's level 8 by the time we surpass minimum competency level and the campaign is more than half done by then.

It's a workable character, but it's lots of hoops to jump through. The whole idea behind point buy is balance and playing the character you want without having to rely on dice rolled stats. Yet the point buy also means that the characters are obviously and noticeably less useful unless they conform to the pre-approved class/race combos. That character is just flat out better and fits the concept better with any race that gets charisma bonuses or feats at first level.

No, rolled stats don't guarantee you anything except having different numbers each time. But in my group I know that point buy does guarantee that some character ideas are not mechanically acheivable and that one guy is always going to play 16 dex/int/con 8 str/wis/cha variant human wizards and nothing else because he is guaranteed two optimal stats and a feat.

[JoeJ]

I wonder how much of the difference in opinion here really comes down to play style. The idea that characters who roll lower stats would have to be carried or wouldn't be able to keep up sounds to me like something that would be much more of a problem in CAS type play than CAW.

[Lindonius]

I hate these people that try and go for rolled stats with a "safety net". These people would be better off playing digital D&D if min/maxing is so much more important to them than roleplaying. In my games I allow rolling for stats (array of 6, 4d6 drop lowest) but make it absolutely clear that if you tank your rolls you'll have to find a way to make it work. Many of our groups most memorable characters came from having the occasional 6 or 7 in a stat. RPwise it's fun to play a flawed character. And it makes your achievements even more enjoyable knowing you did it without stat whoring.

[RickAllison]

I hate these people that try and go for rolled stats with a "safety net". These people would be better off playing digital D&D if min/maxing is so much more important to them than roleplaying. In my games I allow rolling for stats (array of 6, 4d6 drop lowest) but make it absolutely clear that if you tank your rolls you'll have to find a way to make it work. Many of our groups most memorable characters came from having the occasional 6 or 7 in a stat. RPwise it's fun to play a flawed character. And it makes your achievements even more enjoyable knowing you did it without stat whoring.

Indeed. Anyone who has read this thread through knows I'm a staunch advocate of rolling, but you have to take your lumps with the great statistics. It is also why I prefer to roll the dice and then decide what I want to make of it. Getting an 18 but only 8-10 in everything else could be great for a wizard or a fighter going full plate, but it makes it far more difficult to take a monk or paladin. The randomness should create great characters going both ways, but it defeats the purpose to trash rolls that aren't to your liking.

[Pex]

I hate these people that try and go for rolled stats with a "safety net". These people would be better off playing digital D&D if min/maxing is so much more important to them than roleplaying. In my games I allow rolling for stats (array of 6, 4d6 drop lowest) but make it absolutely clear that if you tank your rolls you'll have to find a way to make it work. Many of our groups most memorable characters came from having the occasional 6 or 7 in a stat. RPwise it's fun to play a flawed character. And it makes your achievements even more enjoyable knowing you did it without stat whoring.

The ability and enjoyment of roleplaying has no relation to the ability and enjoyment of min/maxing your character. As "pixie" in the playground, you're probably new to these forums. We call this concept the Stormwind Fallacy. You can google it for more information.

There is nothing wrong with having a low stat score like a 6 or 7 if you roll, but having one does not make you a superior player than one who doesn't have such a low score.

The so called "safety net" is recognition of the inherent luck factor of rolling. The math of the game matters. An array can be so poor the character cannot function. Having one 7 does not make such an array. It's not about the ability to roleplay. The game mechanics of the game itself dooms the character to uselessness and/or not fun for the player. What constitutes the safety net differs from table to table. What makes a safety net "too much" is a matter of personal taste.

[Telok]

I've played characters with straight 13s, or a 5, or two 7s. In other editions it was qute possible to manage, there wasn't any promise of saftey or getting to play exactly what you wanted. Sometimes you played the paladin with awesome stats and other times you only qualified to be a thief and had to use all your cunning and dirty tricks to survive and succeed. Without promises of saftey or balance it worked.

I dug up an old character yesterday, ad&d elf fighter. Specailized dagger duelist (duel, not dual) with 16s in strength, dexterity, and charisma, a 14 intelligence, trained in horsemanship, etiqutte, and classic literature. Never going to see that with point buy, certainly not at third level in this edition and probably never.

[Talamare]

The ability and enjoyment of roleplaying has no relation to the ability and enjoyment of min/maxing your character. As "pixie" in the playground, you're probably new to these forums. We call this concept the Stormwind Fallacy. You can google it for more information.

There is nothing wrong with having a low stat score like a 6 or 7 if you roll, but having one does not make you a superior player than one who doesn't have such a low score.

The so called "safety net" is recognition of the inherent luck factor of rolling. The math of the game matters. An array can be so poor the character cannot function. Having one 7 does not make such an array. It's not about the ability to roleplay. The game mechanics of the game itself dooms the character to uselessness and/or not fun for the player. What constitutes the safety net differs from table to table. What makes a safety net "too much" is a matter of personal taste.

If the point is to have a safety net incase you roll below your standards, then just set your stats to whatever you want.
There is no point in rolling if you were just going to choose your stats.

[Pex]

If the point is to have a safety net incase you roll below your standards, then just set your stats to whatever you want.
There is no point in rolling if you were just going to choose your stats.

With Point Buy you can increase the value given to spend and allow for purchasing above a 15. Everyone has 40 points to spend, 16 costs 11, 17 costs 13, 18 costs 15. Is that fine with you?

The inherent luck factor of rolling is acknowledging it's possible to roll 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 6. The math of the game works against you, yes, even as a Moon Druid. The simplest safety net solution is just to reroll. It's not to reroll until you get all 18s or at least no score below 10.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

With Point Buy you can increase the value given to spend and allow for purchasing above a 15. Everyone has 40 points to spend, 16 costs 11, 17 costs 13, 18 costs 15. Is that fine with you?

The inherent luck factor of rolling is acknowledging it's possible to roll 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 6. The math of the game works against you, yes, even as a Moon Druid. The simplest safety net solution is just to reroll. It's not to reroll until you get all 18s or at least no score below 10.

Neither of these methods resemble the rules. Why are we even discussing this?

[RickAllison]

We have an impromptu method in my IRL group that attempts to address undesirable rolls while still permitting re-rolling (READ: complete houseruling!). You have to make a fully-fledged character from every roll you make. Our druid who arguably has the least reason to take advantage of it? 4 different characters. Stats, classes, concepts, backgrounds, full backstories. Most people just take their rolls :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

We have an impromptu method in my IRL group that attempts to address undesirable rolls while still permitting re-rolling (READ: complete houseruling!). You have to make a fully-fledged character from every roll you make. Our druid who arguably has the least reason to take advantage of it? 4 different characters. Stats, classes, concepts, backgrounds, full backstories. Most people just take their rolls :smallbiggrin:

I'd have dozens just for the heck of it. :P

[JoeJ]

As a security net, what about having every player roll two complete sets of stats, one or both of which can be traded (not copied; if you use it they can't) to another willing player?

[Sigreid]

As a security net, what about having every player roll two complete sets of stats, one or both of which can be traded (not copied; if you use it they can't) to another willing player?

If you're looking for a safety, just rolling two complete sets of stats makes it pretty unlikely that you'll be boned and stuck with something completely unusable.

[MaxWilson]

If you're looking for a safety, just rolling two complete sets of stats makes it pretty unlikely that you'll be boned and stuck with something completely unusable.

Equivalently, embrace PC death/retirement and/or character trees.

[Lindonius]

I've played characters with straight 13s, or a 5, or two 7s. In other editions it was qute possible to manage, there wasn't any promise of saftey or getting to play exactly what you wanted. Sometimes you played the paladin with awesome stats and other times you only qualified to be a thief and had to use all your cunning and dirty tricks to survive and succeed. Without promises of saftey or balance it worked.

Exactly. It's quite obvious that some of the people here advocating the safety net have never even tried playing with these types of arrays. I see regular uses of "unusable" and "cannot function". They're perfectly usable and can make for interesting characters. Min/maxing is boring, our current game has a player with a halfling ranger that has +13 to his attack rolls. At level eight. That'll go up to +14 at lev 9, he can reroll 1s so he'll be pretty much guaranteed to hit AC 15. Imagine if he'd fluffed his rolls and was using a character with 10 less Dexterity. He'd be fighting at +9 instead of +14. Is that "unusable" or "not functioning"?

No it isn't.

[CantigThimble]

Wait +14? Archery style +2, Proficiency +3, Dex +5 = 10

Does he have bracers of archery and a +2 weapon? Or is there something I'm missing here?

[Lindonius]

Wait +14? Archery style +2, Proficiency +3, Dex +5 = 10

Does he have bracers of archery and a +2 weapon? Or is there something I'm missing here?

+2 weapon and a manual of quickness. He's +13 now but he'll be +14 next level (9) and he gets to reroll 1s.

[Telok]

I've been thinking, my distaste of point buy may be partially from the results it has on character creation (boring, similar characters) and it may be partially from something else.

One of the premises of point buy in D&D is "balance and/or fairness." To me this means that the characters created by that method will fall into a defined range of competency and power. Mind you "defined range" can also easily encompass dice rolling, but the point buy is supposed to be limiting the range rather nore narrowly than 3 to 18. In specific I expect point buy, with the premise of "balance and/or fairness," to produce a range of characters from all the available options where no one character can overpower the system or be functionally useless.

My experience with trying to get one character concept to a level beyond "meets the bare minimums at level one and then falls behind as levels increase" makes me feel that you can have those useless characters. If I hadn't looked at various monsters and tried to assess the character's effectiveness at higher levels then I could have easily ended up with a character that was functional at level 1 and crap past level 5. I really have no idea how you would build a archtypical mundane classed knight from the minor nobility who was educated, intelligent, and charming yet functional in combat at all levels (human or a +2 str race probably). At least not without stat boosting magic items, the availability of which is not baked into the rules in this edition.

I also think I've realized why it's a problem. The TSR editions of D&D didn't expect or plan around characters constantly increasing attributes. It was possible, but it was rare and the game was not designed around characters with constantly increasing stats. WotC D&D is designed around characters constantly increasing their stats. In this edition characters are fully expected to have the primary stat at 18 or 20 in the late game, and it seems (to me) that the ACs and saves indicate an 18 primary stat at 12th level. The game isn't calibrated to a stat level of 12 to 18 without significant changes, it's calibrated to a stat level of 14 to 16 at low levels, 18 at mid levels, and 20 at high levels. Which is fine if your character concept doesn't need three feats and four half decent stats to be realized. It would probably be fine if feats and stat increases weren't mutually exclusive, but they are and most characters will only have four ASI (no I don't care about level 20).

If +3 on rolls wasn't important in this edition I probably wouldn't care much beyond the boringness effect that point buy has on character development. But it's a capability gap in the characters vs monsters math that the idea of "balanced and fair" doesn't quite jive with.

[Talamare]

My experience with trying to get one character concept to a level beyond "meets the bare minimums at level one and then falls behind as levels increase" makes me feel that you can have those useless characters. If I hadn't looked at various monsters and tried to assess the character's effectiveness at higher levels then I could have easily ended up with a character that was functional at level 1 and crap past level 5. I really have no idea how you would build a archtypical mundane classed knight from the minor nobility who was educated, intelligent, and charming yet functional in combat at all levels (human or a +2 str race probably). At least not without stat boosting magic items, the availability of which is not baked into the rules in this edition.

I also think I've realized why it's a problem. The TSR editions of D&D didn't expect or plan around characters constantly increasing attributes. It was possible, but it was rare and the game was not designed around characters with constantly increasing stats. WotC D&D is designed around characters constantly increasing their stats. In this edition characters are fully expected to have the primary stat at 18 or 20 in the late game, and it seems (to me) that the ACs and saves indicate an 18 primary stat at 12th level. The game isn't calibrated to a stat level of 12 to 18 without significant changes, it's calibrated to a stat level of 14 to 16 at low levels, 18 at mid levels, and 20 at high levels. Which is fine if your character concept doesn't need three feats and four half decent stat

Two things, you kinda have a false notion of what it means to be charming and educated. A stat of roughly 12-14 would represent that, as well as 12-14 represents someone who is quite strong and hearty.

Finally the game has almost completely disconnected attributes to monster balance. Level 20 monsters have similar ac to level 1 monsters as well as your main source of accuracy is from proficiency. You don't need 20 in any stat, even a character with 10 all would be fine-ish

[Pex]

Exactly. It's quite obvious that some of the people here advocating the safety net have never even tried playing with these types of arrays. I see regular uses of "unusable" and "cannot function". They're perfectly usable and can make for interesting characters. Min/maxing is boring, our current game has a player with a halfling ranger that has +13 to his attack rolls. At level eight. That'll go up to +14 at lev 9, he can reroll 1s so he'll be pretty much guaranteed to hit AC 15. Imagine if he'd fluffed his rolls and was using a character with 10 less Dexterity. He'd be fighting at +9 instead of +14. Is that "unusable" or "not functioning"?

No it isn't.

Boring to you, not for others. You're not a superior player for willingness to play with a poor array. I am not having BadWrongFun because I like to have at least a 16 in my prime stat.

[pwykersotz]

Boring to you, not for others. You're not a superior player for willingness to play with a poor array. I am not having BadWrongFun because I like to have at least a 16 in my prime stat.

I dislike the Stormwind Fallacy because while it contains a nugget of truth (optimizing doesn't mean you're a bad roleplayer), it fails to account for the fact that it DOES take a superior player to play with a less than optimal build.

I use superior in the context of the game being about taking a character and making them all they can be from the context of all three pillars, and having fun while doing it. If two people are given two characters, one with poor stats and one with good stats, and one player has fun only with the one while the other has fun with both, I would classify the one who enjoyed both as superior because he made the most of both.

That's not to say that being a "superior" player is the end goal. I don't aspire to be the best programmer or the best artist. I aspire to do what I want, and if playing with a solid array fills that goal, that's cool. But that doesn't mean that another player isn't better than me for being able to do more with less.

[Telok]

Two things, you kinda have a false notion of what it means to be charming and educated. A stat of roughly 12-14 would represent that, as well as 12-14 represents someone who is quite strong and hearty.

Finally the game has almost completely disconnected attributes to monster balance. Level 20 monsters have similar ac to level 1 monsters as well as your main source of accuracy is from proficiency. You don't need 20 in any stat, even a character with 10 all would be fine-ish
I just finished a rough analysis of twenty monsters from cr ten to sixteen. It looks like you get a 50% rate of success at 19 ac, +8 attack, +7 saves, and a successful hit will deal you an average of 40 to 45 damage. So it looks like 16s for attack stats and 14s elsewhere are the "you must be this tall to get on this ride" sign.

Unless the game is designed to accomidate characters who can only hit and save 40% of the time.

[Talamare]

I just finished a rough analysis of twenty monsters from cr ten to sixteen. It looks like you get a 50% rate of success at 19 ac, +8 attack, +7 saves, and a successful hit will deal you an average of 40 to 45 damage. So it looks like 16s for attack stats and 14s elsewhere are the "you must be this tall to get on this ride" sign.

Unless the game is designed to accomidate characters who can only hit and save 40% of the time.

You also have to consider that even at CR1/4 we see monsters with 17 AC and CR1 with 18 AC
This is when your Proficiency is only at a 2

So yea, taking a rough average is tricky because some monsters are difficult to kill because they are hard to hit, but have poor health
While there are plenty who are the opposite, walking meatbags with almost no AC

Finally, at the end of the day, a 40% hit chance is low but not unlikely. Compared to previous editions where majority of your accuracy bonuses came from player options. Meaning it was possible to be at under 10% accuracy by lv20. 40% may be low, but with advantage that's still around 64% accuracy (24% increase). Advantage is one of the biggest boosters to accuracy, and it's incredibly powerful. Unlike again, previous edition when the most common boost to accuracy was only like a +2 (10% increase).


Altho, Thanks for the work on the Analysis

[CantigThimble]

+2 weapon and a manual of quickness. He's +13 now but he'll be +14 next level (9) and he gets to reroll 1s.

I would like to point out that is a pretty hefty dose of magic items. In games I've played in you count yourself lucky to have a +1 weapon at all. Every player has a magic item or two but only a couple are permanent combat boosts. In those games that player would be using +5 or 6 to hit, +3 or 4 if they were built for melee. Those magic items are going a long way towards mitigating low stats. Not to mention that your damage per hit is dropping by close to 50% in both scenarios.

[Talamare]

Roughly how each stat should be perceived
Str
Someone with sedentary life style 8
Someone with active life style 10
Someone who works out regularly 12
Someone who takes part in strong man competitions 14
Someone who usually wins strong man competitions 16
Someone who is actively breaking world records for feats for strength 18


Int
Someone with no education, poor at math 8
Someone with a basic education 10
Someone with a comprehensive education (think college) 12
Someone belonging in MENSA, incredibly intelligent 14
One of the brightest minds of the generation 16
World smartest, will go down in history books 18

[Lindonius]

Boring to you, not for others. You're not a superior player for willingness to play with a poor array. I am not having BadWrongFun because I like to have at least a 16 in my prime stat.

No problem. Choose point buy. Let's be honest here the problem really isn't that you don't want to play with less than 16 in your prime stat. You can get that with point buy no probs. The problem is that you actually would really rather have an 18 or even a 20 in your prime stat. At level 1. So you advocate rolling for stats with a safety net.

If you allow rolling for stats with a safety net, you are encouraging min/maxing at the expense of RP. If the min/maxing side of the game appeals to you more that's all well and good. Don't have a problem with that. But you shouldn't be advocating this method to others who prefer not to use the safety net because it produces more interesting characters.

I'll give you another example, two players of mine rolled some interesting stat arrays that had a max roll of 18, but also a tanked one of 6 or 7. The players were a couple and they put their heads together and created a kind of "Master Blaster" situation, they chose a 6 str/20 int gnome wizard who travelled with a 20 str/7 int Half-Orc Barb. They were good RPers and they played off each other to create two extremely fun and memorable characters that had absolutely no problem with their dump stats because they worked together.

Or you could roll for stats to create your uber-murder hobo knowing that it won't matter about 6s or 7s because you can just choose point buy if you tank your rolls for an ever-so-slightly less uber-murder hobo. Or even worse re-roll your stats, which as others have said in this thread means you may as well just start with 18/18/18/18/18/18 and have no interesting character flaws or weaknesses at all.

[pwykersotz]

Unless the game is designed to accomidate characters who can only hit and save 40% of the time.

Of level-appropriate CR? Yes it is.

[Lindonius]

I would like to point out that is a pretty hefty dose of magic items. In games I've played in you count yourself lucky to have a +1 weapon at all. Every player has a magic item or two but only a couple are permanent combat boosts. In those games that player would be using +5 or 6 to hit, +3 or 4 if they were built for melee. Those magic items are going a long way towards mitigating low stats. Not to mention that your damage per hit is dropping by close to 50% in both scenarios.

Yeah our DM was pretty new and allowed a few rolls on too high a treasure table IMO. That player with the ranger was really lucky with his loot rolls on top of that. Most of the rest of us have +1 weapons and armour at this point.

[Pex]

I dislike the Stormwind Fallacy because while it contains a nugget of truth (optimizing doesn't mean you're a bad roleplayer), it fails to account for the fact that it DOES take a superior player to play with a less than optimal build.

I use superior in the context of the game being about taking a character and making them all they can be from the context of all three pillars, and having fun while doing it. If two people are given two characters, one with poor stats and one with good stats, and one player has fun only with the one while the other has fun with both, I would classify the one who enjoyed both as superior because he made the most of both.

That's not to say that being a "superior" player is the end goal. I don't aspire to be the best programmer or the best artist. I aspire to do what I want, and if playing with a solid array fills that goal, that's cool. But that doesn't mean that another player isn't better than me for being able to do more with less.

That's fine, but the fallacy is saying a player with an optimized character cannot/does not want to roleplay. See bold below.


No problem. Choose point buy. Let's be honest here the problem really isn't that you don't want to play with less than 16 in your prime stat. You can get that with point buy no probs. The problem is that you actually would really rather have an 18 or even a 20 in your prime stat. At level 1. So you advocate rolling for stats with a safety net.

If you allow rolling for stats with a safety net, you are encouraging min/maxing at the expense of RP. If the min/maxing side of the game appeals to you more that's all well and good. Don't have a problem with that. But you shouldn't be advocating this method to others who prefer not to use the safety net because it produces more interesting characters.

I'll give you another example, two players of mine rolled some interesting stat arrays that had a max roll of 18, but also a tanked one of 6 or 7. The players were a couple and they put their heads together and created a kind of "Master Blaster" situation, they chose a 6 str/20 int gnome wizard who travelled with a 20 str/7 int Half-Orc Barb. They were good RPers and they played off each other to create two extremely fun and memorable characters that had absolutely no problem with their dump stats because they worked together.

Or you could roll for stats to create your uber-murder hobo knowing that it won't matter about 6s or 7s because you can just choose point buy if you tank your rolls for an ever-so-slightly less uber-murder hobo. Or even worse re-roll your stats, which as others have said in this thread means you may as well just start with 18/18/18/18/18/18 and have no interesting character flaws or weaknesses at all.

1. With Point Buy I can never play a dwarf warlock with 16 CH or halfling barbarian with 16 ST, so Point Buy is the problem.

2. It is not an abomination for a 1st level character to have an 18.

3. It is not a crime against humanity for a player to like having an 18 at first level even if he doesn't get one through dice rolling.

4. I do condemn 5E Point Buy, and note it's only 5E Point Buy and not Point Buy in other games like Pathfinder, 4E, and 3E, for denying the possibility of an 18 at 1st level because I don't find such a concept an abomination. However, I have never, ever demanded I must have an 18 at 1st level or the character is The Suck.

5. You still seem incapable of comprehending it is possible to have an optimized character and still be all gung ho in roleplaying, character development, care about storylines and gameworld, and all sorts of drama of exciting interesting things. It is possible for a character with an 18 to have a weakness. It could be reflected in another ability score being an 8 or 6. It could be reflected in how the player roleplays his character. The choices he makes result in consequences happening that develop the game.

[pwykersotz]

That's fine, but the fallacy is saying a player with an optimized character cannot/does not want to roleplay. See bold below.

Yeah, I'm pretty much on board with you on that one. That post DOES fit the Stormwind fallacy in general. That said, when most people talk about roleplay in that context, they're referring to people being people. Like the Marvel Universe. Even the superheros can be addicted to drugs or alcohol or cause domestic violence. Basically it's saying that Superman shouldn't exist, or that he shouldn't exist very often at least. I think it's more of a gameplay style than necessarily a problem.

You put me in a hard position here Pex, because I disagree with Lindonius' post and the sentiment about roleplay, but I just hate the Stormwind Fallacy SO MUCH. :smalltongue:

[Lindonius]

It is possible for a character with an 18 to have a weakness. It could be reflected in another ability score being an 8 or 6.

But if you are re-rolling stats you don't like you won't have an 8 or 6. All I'm saying is that a low score in a stat or 2 doesnt make for an unplayable character.

[CantigThimble]

But if you are re-rolling stats you don't like you won't have an 8 or 6. All I'm saying is that a low score in a stat or 2 doesnt make for an unplayable character.

No one is saying that low stats make for unplayable characters. There is no such thing as an unplayable character. (at least in this amorphous theoretical situation we have going on here) However, if a player is going to have less fun or not have fun with particular stats there is a good motivation to give them different stats. We want all the players to have fun. If the way they get the stats they like actively detracts from the enjoyment of other players (possibly due to unfairness or jealousy) then that is another factor to consider when deciding how people should determine their stats.

I've played with rolling for stats and a safety net for years. I've rerolled arrays because they were too low and rerolled arrays because they were too high and rerolled arrays because they were too flat. (5 14s for example) My goal wasn't to have the best stats, or to have stats that fit a preconcieved notion of a character, I've adjusted plenty of characters to fit my rolled stats as well as the converse, my goal was to have a fun character according to my mood, my group and have the whole thing be a bit unpredictable. Point buy can often feel very formulaic and repetitive when making characters and sometimes a bit of randomness can enliven that experience.

Disclaimer: Rolling stats is not for everyone. If you or your group do not want to roll stats then you probably shouldn't.

[RickAllison]

and rerolled arrays because they were too flat. (5 14s for example)

I kind of like that array! Play a vuman (Skilled feat) Rogue (AT) 12/Bard (Lore) 3/Cleric (Knowledge) 1/Warlock 2 (Beguiling Influence) so at L17 you have a minimum roll of 18 in every single skill check in the game :smallbiggrin:

For RP, flavor it as someone who was a fantastic all-around worker, but who was too lazy to stick around one job and become a master!

[oxybe]

I dug up an old character yesterday, ad&d elf fighter. Specailized dagger duelist (duel, not dual) with 16s in strength, dexterity, and charisma, a 14 intelligence, trained in horsemanship, etiqutte, and classic literature. Never going to see that with point buy, certainly not at third level in this edition and probably never.

well yes, but that's likely because AD&D characters had a different relationship with their stats. stats generally meant far less to a character's ability to succeed at tasks.

that 16 str meant +1 hit and damage. the ad&d equivalent to a 5th ed 16 cha would be 18/+51! for the +3 hit/damage.

if memory serves 16 dex had similar bonuses: +1 to hit with ranged stuff, and a -1 to your ac and similar reactionary.

16 charisma was what... +3 reaction modifiers and max number of disposable human trash?

that 14 int meant you knew 2, maybe 3 other languages... and that's it. that's what int meant to a fighter mechanically speaking.

you also wouldn't be able to see an elf paladin in AD&D or an elf with a 7 int, but oh the wondrous times we live in!

all that to say that a stat in one edition is not the same as one in another. the circumstances around them are quite different.

[Pex]

Yeah, I'm pretty much on board with you on that one. That post DOES fit the Stormwind fallacy in general. That said, when most people talk about roleplay in that context, they're referring to people being people. Like the Marvel Universe. Even the superheros can be addicted to drugs or alcohol or cause domestic violence. Basically it's saying that Superman shouldn't exist, or that he shouldn't exist very often at least. I think it's more of a gameplay style than necessarily a problem.

You put me in a hard position here Pex, because I disagree with Lindonius' post and the sentiment about roleplay, but I just hate the Stormwind Fallacy SO MUCH. :smalltongue:

I have no problem with players who are able to play a character with a poor array and have a great time. I just object to the notion that's a superior form of play than a player who likes to optimize. I know you were not saying that, but you got hooked on the line because the concept of playing a character with a poor array was appealing. You're Nemo caught in the tuna net. :smallsmile: We're cool on this subject.


But if you are re-rolling stats you don't like you won't have an 8 or 6. All I'm saying is that a low score in a stat or 2 doesnt make for an unplayable character.

I never said having an 8 or 6 is an unplayable character. It's not about one score. It's about the entire array. 16 16 13 12 10 8 works as a rolled array. Even 16 15 13 12 8 8 is fine if smarting. 12 10 9 9 7 6 is not fine. I already said before dice rolling is not perfect. The "safety net" is the compensation for the imperfection. Point Buy has compensation too. Increase the point buy value and allow for purchasing scores above 15. The concept of Point Buy is fine. Its implementation in 5E specifically I find appalling. I'm ok with Point Buy implementation in Pathfinder.

[Talamare]

That's fine, but the fallacy is saying a player with an optimized character cannot/does not want to roleplay. See bold below.



1. With Point Buy I can never play a dwarf warlock with 16 CH or halfling barbarian with 16 ST, so Point Buy is the problem.

2. It is not an abomination for a 1st level character to have an 18.

3. It is not a crime against humanity for a player to like having an 18 at first level even if he doesn't get one through dice rolling.

4. I do condemn 5E Point Buy, and note it's only 5E Point Buy and not Point Buy in other games like Pathfinder, 4E, and 3E, for denying the possibility of an 18 at 1st level because I don't find such a concept an abomination. However, I have never, ever demanded I must have an 18 at 1st level or the character is The Suck.

5. You still seem incapable of comprehending it is possible to have an optimized character and still be all gung ho in roleplaying, character development, care about storylines and gameworld, and all sorts of drama of exciting interesting things. It is possible for a character with an 18 to have a weakness. It could be reflected in another ability score being an 8 or 6. It could be reflected in how the player roleplays his character. The choices he makes result in consequences happening that develop the game.

1 - "I can never play a specific race that can't reach a specific arbitrary value", This argument is not only completely meaningless, but it doesn't at all show that point buy is the problem.
It's like say, As a man I can pee from my penis, can a woman pee from her penis? No? GG

Again, it's the way races were designed that is the problem. It's a hold over design from an archaic system that they were afraid of removing. Just how like rolling is a hold over design from an archaic system that they were afraid of removing


Finally, in this system it IS an abomination for a character to start with 20 in a stat, which is max.
Why? Because the any RPG system is designed to have your character grow over time.

You need to understand that, Starting with 18 in 5e is NOT THE SAME as starting with 18 in 3e/4e
Here, Let's put it in terms you might be able to understand a little better

Starting with 18 or 20 in 5e, is roughly the same as starting with 26 in 3e/4e

[Telok]

well yes, but that's likely because AD&D characters had a different relationship with their stats. stats generally meant far less to a character's ability to succeed at tasks....
all that to say that a stat in one edition is not the same as one in another. the circumstances around them are quite different.

My point isn't that stats mean the same things in different editions, they obviously don't and nobody expects them to. My point is that using a point buy system does not generate those characters and often mechanically punishes character concepts that don't fit the pre-approved archetypes. Player character fighters can't be intelligent or charismatic because that reduces their ability to play the game.

I prefer rolled stats because you get characters with more variety and not the same-ish character builds that you see in point buy.

[Lindonius]

12 10 9 9 7 6 is not fine.

This guy seemed to have fun with it......

http://gibletblizzard.blogspot.jp/2013/03/man-rider-love-story.html

[Talamare]

I prefer rolled stats because you get characters with more variety and not the same-ish character builds that you see in point buy.

You tend to end up with even MORE same-ish builds with rolling, because all your rolls are pulled closer to average

You tend to be a character who is alright with everything, and often lacking any weaknesses at all
It's fairly common to see 15/14/14/13/13/12, rolling exceptionally high or exceptionally low when rolling are outliers, not norm.

[Pex]

1 - "I can never play a specific race that can't reach a specific arbitrary value", This argument is not only completely meaningless, but it doesn't at all show that point buy is the problem.
It's like say, As a man I can pee from my penis, can a woman pee from her penis? No? GG

Again, it's the way races were designed that is the problem. It's a hold over design from an archaic system that they were afraid of removing. Just how like rolling is a hold over design from an archaic system that they were afraid of removing


Finally, in this system it IS an abomination for a character to start with 20 in a stat, which is max.
Why? Because the any RPG system is designed to have your character grow over time.

You need to understand that, Starting with 18 in 5e is NOT THE SAME as starting with 18 in 3e/4e
Here, Let's put it in terms you might be able to understand a little better

Starting with 18 or 20 in 5e, is roughly the same as starting with 26 in 3e/4e

Tomato potahto because I can get the features I want with the races as given through dice rolling.

The game does not forbid 18 or even 20 at first level. Point Buy is the variant. The official method is dice rolling where you can be lucky enough to roll a 16 or 17 and have racial modifier make it 18 or 19. If you're lucky enough to roll an 18, a racial modifier can make it 20. It is also true the official method doesn't have a "safety net". Disappointing since 3E did. The safety net is a house rule.

[Telok]

You tend to end up with even MORE same-ish builds with rolling, because all your rolls are pulled closer to average

You tend to be a character who is alright with everything, and often lacking any weaknesses at all
It's fairly common to see 15/14/14/13/13/12, rolling exceptionally high or exceptionally low when rolling are outliers, not norm.

Wtf? I've seen flat stats like that maybe twice in the past ten years. 4d6b3 and assign pushes a higher average but it won't flatten the curve like that. In my experience over the last couple of decades rolling produces more variation in characters than the 5e point buy does and it doesn't penalize you for playing a race not optimized to the chosen class.

I have never seen a D&D warrior type under a D&D point buy system with either intelligence or charisma above a +0 modifier because it takes away from strength, constitution, dexterity, and wisdom. That's what point buy encourages and that's what you get from the players.

[Talamare]

Wtf? I've seen flat stats like that maybe twice in the past ten years. 4d6b3 and assign pushes a higher average but it won't flatten the curve like that. In my experience over the last couple of decades rolling produces more variation in characters than the 5e point buy does and it doesn't penalize you for playing a race not optimized to the chosen class.

I have never seen a D&D warrior type under a D&D point buy system with either intelligence or charisma above a +0 modifier because it takes away from strength, constitution, dexterity, and wisdom. That's what point buy encourages and that's what you get from the players.

Let's be honest here tho, even with rolling Int and Cha will still be the first to go on a Warrior Type
Unless you happen to have rolled strictly above average across the board.


The problem started in 4e, and hasn't really been fixed since then
I'll even illustrate the problem~

In 3.5,
everyone needs some Int, your Int determines how much skills you get
everyone needs some Con, your Con determines how likely you're not to die
everyone needs some Dex, your Dex determines how fast you go, and helps you avoid most damage spells
everyone needs some Str, your Str determines how much you can carry
everyone needs some Wis, your Wis determines how well you can see everything around you, and helps you avoid most control spells
Cha was a dump stat in 3.5

In 4e... Everything is a dump stat, if you're not actively using it, it's likely only rarely used.
Skills? Nah, let those 2 dudes with 18 Int/Wis take care of it. One person, One check, Done~!

Matter of fact, we will even make it that its BAD for a Warrior to have a decent-ish stat?
As you said. AND, not only will it never be used outside of combat for RP, but we will even make it so that you only really need 1 stat per category for Saves.

5e comes around, and the idea has been relieved slightly but its still there overall. You now need each stat again for saves, but again they are rare saves and still useless for skills.

They need to design a system in which every stat is important for everyone, until then... Dump stats are really the only option.
Altho, to make it interesting, you can force more group checks. As in, you need 2~3 DIFFERENT people to succeed. That will give at least some pressure for smarter warriors.
Another option is to force splitting the party a little more often when doing checks.

[JoeJ]

But if you are re-rolling stats you don't like you won't have an 8 or 6. All I'm saying is that a low score in a stat or 2 doesnt make for an unplayable character.

The safety net rules pretty much all require you to reroll the entire array, not individual stats. So if you get a 6 or even a 3 you might still want to keep it rather than give up the rest of the numbers.

[Pex]

The safety net rules pretty much all require you to reroll the entire array, not individual stats. So if you get a 6 or even a 3 you might still want to keep it rather than give up the rest of the numbers.

Yes.

There are also Ye Olde "2 for 1" and "1 for 1" where you decrease one score by 2 or 1 depending on DM/group consensus to increase another score by 1 as often as you want. It's no big deal for someone to make a 9 an 8 so that a 15 can become 16 before racial modifiers when no other score is 16, but you do get into real min/maxing to make 10 an 8 or 12 becomes 10 to have a 16 be 17 so that racial modifier makes the 17 an 18 or 19 regardless what the other scores are. That's not a bad thing to happen and DMs could be indifferent about it, but it could be unpalatable to some people especially perhaps those who aren't liking rolling in the first place. If the group likes high power play such a thing is normal and maybe even necessary.