DMs, stop being generous w stat rolls

[PeteNutButter]

What the title says. People like to roll stats, because it's fun and part of the D&D tradition. 5e isn't really balanced for it. If you want to roll stats stick to the rules in the phb. Do not incorporate older stat rolls like rerolling ones or rolling many sets.

A single roll of 16 is imbalancing allowing a character to start with an 18, but if they roll an 18 then the PC starts with a 20. +10% to hit and 2 dmg might not be obviously game breaking but it is in a bounded system. Now the biggest problem IMO is the PC can pretty much never improve. They start feeling like a god at lvl 1. And then they will take more feats since they needn't boost their primary stat, compounding this issue the higher they go in level. Multiple high scores start pushing into ground where builds can multi class into very MAD characters and end up seriously outshining other members of the party or the party as a whole.

Be fair and make the players earn their stats. End rant.

EDIT: I am aiming this rant at new DMs that may not understand the ramifications of overpowered level one PCs in 5e. Generous rolls may be appropriate for your table.

[Yuki Akuma]

Nah. Having my players curbstomp everything is fun for all of us.

[Zman]

What the title says. People like to roll stats, because it's fun and part of the D&D tradition. 5e isn't really balanced for it. If you want to roll stats stick to the rules in the phb. Do not incorporate older stat rolls like rerolling ones or rolling many sets.

A single roll of 16 is imbalancing allowing a character to start with an 18, but if they roll an 18 then the PC starts with a 20. +10% to hit and 2 dmg might not be obviously game breaking but it is in a bounded system. Now the biggest problem IMO is the PC can pretty much never improve. They start feeling like a god at lvl 1. And then they will take more feats since they needn't boost their primary stat, compounding this issue the higher they go in level. Multiple high scores start pushing into ground where builds can multi class into very MAD characters and end up seriously outshining other members of the party or the party as a whole.

Be fair and make the players earn their stats. End rant.


Absolutely. IMO if you roll stats count anything larger than 15 as 15. Though, these could work roll 9+d6, or 7+2d4. 4d6b3 just doesn't work.

I don't let my players roll, they get 27 or Pointbuy or 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 as a Stat Array.

[Knaight]

Now the biggest problem IMO is the PC can pretty much never improve. They start feeling like a god at lvl 1.

You're significantly overstating the effect of raw stats here. A level 1 fighter with 20 strength is at a significant disadvantage to a level 20 fighter with 10 strength, what with the 3 or 7 attack/round difference, having about 10% as many HP, being behind in armor, probably being down a magic item or three, etc. Proficiency bonus differences nearly match the strength difference and probably outdo it with every other attribute. The list goes on. D&D 5e might have a shallower power curve than other recent D&D editions, but it still has a really steep power curve, and making it feel like the PC can pretty much never improve involves heavy system overhaul. That fighter example is one of the better ones too, given that any spell caster suddenly has vastly more spells at significantly higher levels.

[PeteNutButter]

Nah. Having my players curbstomp everything is fun for all of us.

Obviously you can play the game however you wish. This is more directed at inexperienced DMs who like new parents give the kid the cookie because they always wanted one as kid.

[Safety Sword]

Absolutely. IMO if you roll stats count anything larger than 15 as 15. Though, these could work roll 9+d6, or 7+2d4. 4d6b3 just doesn't work.

I don't let my players roll, they get 27 or Pointbuy or 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 as a Stat Array.

I'm a big fan of standard arrays. If you want a higher powered beginning to your campaign you can give an array with larger numbers.

The biggest advantage is that every character has the same array though. Point Buy I can take or leave, and rolling for stats is thankfully in the past.

[Gastronomie]

Or how about "let's go with whatever everyone in the particular group is satisfied with".

If everyone rolls good stats, there will be nothing of a problem in there - it's all equal, it's "fair". And if someone rolls too low in such a game where everyone wants to play characters with high stats, chances are the DM will allow him to alter his stats so they match, or at least get very closer to, those of the other characters.

And I don't really understand why you don't like Feats either, because IMO they're much more interesting than simply saying "+2 CHA, my character becomes even more smexy", or "+2 STR, my character becomes even more burly and now he's a mass of manly muscle".

Sure, I understand some people think like you, but you shouldn't push your opinions onto an entire forum like you did with your topic title.

Oh, and also: This is a friggin' TRPG. Even if your stats happen to be low, that wouldn't matter much if you can role-play good enough and solve the problems without much fighting. Which is one of the major selling points of TRPGs anyways.

[PeteNutButter]

You're significantly overstating the effect of raw stats here. A level 1 fighter with 20 strength is at a significant disadvantage to a level 20 fighter with 10 strength, what with the 3 or 7 attack/round difference, having about 10% as many HP, being behind in armor, probably being down a magic item or three, etc. Proficiency bonus differences nearly match the strength difference and probably outdo it with every other attribute. The list goes on. D&D 5e might have a shallower power curve than other recent D&D editions, but it still has a really steep power curve, and making it feel like the PC can pretty much never improve involves heavy system overhaul. That fighter example is one of the better ones too, given that any spell caster suddenly has vastly more spells at significantly higher levels.

That fighter that starts with a 16 str and con is so far behind that fighter that starts with a 20 in each. What happens when they are equal level? Either they have the same feats with the stronger one having +2 to hit and damage or the stronger one has two more feats to dominate the fight. Depending on feats choices that can be over 30% more damage. That's massive.

Yeah levels matter of course. I meant their str stat can never improve. It's kind of game breaking/depressing, knowing you could never grow stronger or wiser or whatever.

Ever cheat in an RPG video game to max a stat? It can still be fun, but it's imbalancing.

[PeteNutButter]

Or how about "let's go with whatever everyone in the particular group is satisfied with".

If everyone rolls good stats, there will be nothing of a problem in there - it's all equal, it's "fair". And if someone rolls too low in such a game where everyone wants to play characters with high stats, chances are the DM will allow him to alter his stats so they match, or at least get very closer to, those of the other characters.

And I don't really understand why you don't like Feats either, because IMO they're much more interesting than simply saying "+2 CHA, my character becomes even more smexy", or "+2 STR, my character becomes even more burly and now he's a mass of manly muscle".

Sure, I understand some people think like you, but you shouldn't push your opinions onto an entire forum like you did with your topic title.

Oh, and also: This is a friggin' TRPG. Even if your stats happen to be low, that wouldn't matter much if you can role-play good enough and solve the problems without much fighting. Which is one of the major selling points of TRPGs anyways.

As mentioned above in a previous reply it's meant as more of a tip to new DMs that don't quite understand the long term ramifications. Honestly I see this as a mistake that new DMs make and most grow out of, but it might be right for your table. Players appreciate their power when it is earned I game not via smashing some cubes onto a table or even worse clicking a digital button. Pelor forgives us.

I edited the OP to reflect the target audience.

[Knaight]

Yeah levels matter of course. I meant their str stat can never improve. It's kind of game breaking/depressing, knowing you could never grow stronger or wiser or whatever.
This is pushing the definitions of game breaking and depressing pretty far. I'll admit that I care a lot less about mechanical advancement than the typical D&D player - heck, I could see myself enjoying a game about characters who are slowly decaying, getting mechanically worse at everything and trying to do what they can before their capability to do so goes away - but even if you do like having advancement, this shuts down one particular method at most, while advancement in the rest is increasing dramatically.

Also, if you dislike the prospect of not being able to improve a core stat, you can always choose to assign that 18 somewhere else, or pick a race that doesn't get a +2 to said core stat, so there's that.


Ever cheat in an RPG video game to max a stat? It can still be fun, but it's imbalancing.
A) This has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that there is no room for advancement.
B) If you pick an RPG where the raw stats match to D&D at all, it's really not that imbalancing. More often you'll get something like a range of 0-10 stats to start with that end up in the hundreds somewhere, affect character power a lot more, and as such tip the balance a lot more directly if maximized.
C) The exact same problems exist even if you roll straight 3d6. They crop up less often, but it's hardly impossible to either get one high number (particularly when you define that as a 16+, as there's a 64% chance of getting at least one of those on any given character with straight 3d6, and a 98% chance that in a group of 4 at least one person has it). If the balance is as fragile as you say it is, you shouldn't be rolling at all. After all, using straight 3d6 again there's about a 26% chance that, given two characters, one of them averages +2 per attribute over the other.


As mentioned above in a previous reply it's meant as more of a tip to new DMs that don't quite understand the long term ramifications. Honestly I see this as a mistake that new DMs make and most grow out of, but it might be right for your table. Players appreciate their power when it is earned I game not via smashing some cubes onto a table or even worse clicking a digital button. Pelor forgives us.
This still applies to any rolling at all. High stats gained via 3d6 down the line are still not "earned" and do come via "smashing some cubes onto a table". If you want to argue that rolling for characters is sloppy design, go ahead. Just don't argue that rolling for characters is sloppy design when using particular rolling methods with a bunch of arguments applicable to rolling as a whole.

[Reaper34]

For new dm's this can be true. after awhile you learn how to counter these outstanding stats. when i'm dm i us 4d6b3 if you roll great just like in the rest of the game you get rewarded, but if you roll crap you live with it. i'll work with a player if it's just horrable but a 3 here or a 6 there makes the players learn how to deal with a handicap just like a 20 lets them be really good at some things. new dm's won't learn how to counter if they never encounter it.

there is always room for advancement if the dm does his job right.

[soldersbushwack]

Or how about "let's go with whatever everyone in the particular group is satisfied with".

If everyone rolls good stats, there will be nothing of a problem in there - it's all equal, it's "fair". And if someone rolls too low in such a game where everyone wants to play characters with high stats, chances are the DM will allow him to alter his stats so they match, or at least get very closer to, those of the other characters.

And I don't really understand why you don't like Feats either, because IMO they're much more interesting than simply saying "+2 CHA, my character becomes even more smexy", or "+2 STR, my character becomes even more burly and now he's a mass of manly muscle".

Sure, I understand some people think like you, but you shouldn't push your opinions onto an entire forum like you did with your topic title.

Oh, and also: This is a friggin' TRPG. Even if your stats happen to be low, that wouldn't matter much if you can role-play good enough and solve the problems without much fighting. Which is one of the major selling points of TRPGs anyways.

IMO this is a major problem with 5th edition and not with feats per se. They shouldn't have forced players to choose between ASIs and feats. ASIs are flat out always better than feats except for very far in the end game.

[bid]

The only gain of higher stats is easier MC.

If you've got Str20, the DM will adjust the difficulty. You still need the same dice roll to hit, the same damage roll to kill. Except you have no growth left.

It's just as bad as the loudness war.


If you want to be generous, give them a feat and a +1 instead of the +2 ASI. They'll growth faster and odd values won't be optimized away.

[RickAllison]

From what I've seen, the issue is not the stat boosts (though the people who get the giant Con scores have a distinct advantage in health...) but the fact that they are able to grab combinations of feats and MCing that are not available to those who rolled badly or have point-buy/standard array.

As was seen in the Bladesinger thread, a multiclass that would be poor choice under more regulated systems of stats seemed like a great option because the user didn't have to worry about only having three ASIs to distribute among his secondary stats. Basically, the same number of ASIs that it would take to max out the one primary stat via point-buy was able to max three stats using the rolled stats. That poses an issue...

[Lawful Good]

Yeah, I don't like this system of determining stats. Personally, I'd like to see a homebrew rule or something where characters start out with ridiculously low stats (13,10,10,8,8,6) and get something like +1 every level or something. Lvl 20 is where you solo the Tarrasque, lvl 1 is where you get smashed by a kobold.

[Mellack]

Having high stats does not "break the game." The only problem comes when you have one character with several high stats and another that doesn't, and that is only because of possible inter-party rivalry. I could let my players have 20 in every stat and still have a fun game. And they would still be advancing as they gain levels. There is nothing wrong with getting stats in by any method. Play whatever your group finds most enjoyable. Some like to play average Joes who get caught up in adventure, some like to play the children of gods. Whatever floats your boat. My only recommendation would be to keep the different characters at an approximately even level. The OP seems more like a rant that others are not playing in his approved way than any sort of advice.

[Reaper34]

another fix would be to go back to 3e 3d6 take what you roll. still allows the possibility and fun of maybe getting that 18 but also increases the risk of that 3.

[Hrugner]

My group has always adjusted it based on the DM and campaign. I understand "don't be generous" but choking down player power by throttling stats just forces players away from more MAD character concepts.

[Zman]

To all those saying High stats done matter or affect balance, that is simply not true. First
Y, if one character's stats are significantly higher than another's it creates an inherent imbalance that is difficult to overcome. When one character has to spen three ASIs on their primary stat and another simply spends one and nets two feats,math at is problematic. Secondly, the CR system, especially at lower levels is based around the assumption character so not start with a stat higher than 15 before racial modifiers. The entire game is built around those assumptions. It is true bounded accuracy won't break thanks to the hard 20 caps, but balance is still significantly affected.

[Zaq]

People like to roll stats, because it's fun


Ugh, speak for yourself. Rolling stats is a barbaric practice that should have ended when we realized that characters were supposed to last longer than a session. It's stressful not to be able to reliably achieve baseline competence, and it's super not fun to have stats that are way lower than your buddy's stats just because a few d6s decided they didn't like you on one very important roll. A single die roll should almost never have a huge and permanent effect on a character, which is why I'm also against rolling for HP (thankfully 5e hard-codes in the ability to take the average) and why I'm against save-or-die effects.

Anyway, I agree that it's bad to have rolled stats that are way higher or way lower than anyone else's, but I don't see it being the end of the world if someone has high starting stats as long as everyone else does too. Is it really so gamebreaking to be able to multiclass in ways the devs didn't like? Is it really going to break the game to have someone be, as you say, 5% or 10% more accurate? I don't give a damn about bounded accuracy—something you notice on one die roll in twenty really isn't cause for flailing our arms and running in circles.

[manny2510]

Rolled stats follow natural selection with players, if you begin an adventure with a party of adventurers death due to low stats will result in a final party with higher stats than the average in a normal campaign, thus rolling for stats is better but will absolutely create deadly low stat situations. I think this is sound logic.

[Pex]

Your premise is wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a high stat or two. The game does not fall apart. The game was designed with the possibility of having a 20 at 1st level - be lucky enough to roll an 18 and apply +2 racial modifier to it. Even with Point Buy you can have a 17 at 1st level which can become an 18 at 4th along with a 16. Spend for two 15s, apply +2 racial modifier to one, raise both by 1 at 4th level, and that's not even accounting for the second +1 racial modifier races have. You can have a 17 and 16 at 1st level with Point Buy and not care one iota about having two 8s in dump stats you'll never use, like IN and CH. You don't have to particularly like high stats but how dare you say other people shouldn't like them either. You are not a superior player or DM because you don't use high scores.

[MeeposFire]

I put this as an example (an additional one mind you) of making mountains out of mole hills though of course with some nice intentions in mind (but I think in this case it has become misguided). High starting stats are unnecessary but are also not that big of a deal. You can certainly deal with them in many ways. The only issue i if different players have vastly different stat levels and that is an issue because they often feel that it is unfair which is a wholly different problem that is actually potentially important.

A high stat game changes expectations and the feel in some cases (in that the game can feel easier and your characters more elite/competent) but due to how the game works even these high stats are not boundless. If you start with a 20 in 3e or 4e you have a permanent advantage over characters that do not (at least in that stat anyway). In 5e the stat is bound. If you start with a 20 then you start with an advantage but it eventually goes away because almost anybody can get a 20 in that stat given time since you generally cannot raise it higher (and even if you did that same mechanic applies to other characters if they were given the same bonuses). Due to this the game keeps this from becoming a problem.

Also note that another change from AD&D is that higher stats do not jump in effectiveness with just one attribute point. IN AD&D this essentially applies to strength but it is important. Starting with a max stat in 5e might mean being a +1 or 2 over your standard characters. This is a nice boost but is within acceptable boundaries. Having max str in AD&D would boost you by +3 to hit and +6 to damage over in a system where +6 to damage was a larger bonus than it is here in 5e. The most extreme example but it serves my point. 18/00 definitely breaks the boundaries of the standard attribute bonuses while 20 str in 5e goes nowhere near that far.


That being said I actually do like playing lower stat characters every once in a while (the variety and challenge can be very fun) and I do not really advocate high starting stats as a standard rule (I do not think it is needed) but for some groups it helps them get more fun or get the feeling they want. For an example of that last idea think of an older AD&D era player that liked 2e Dark Sun and wanted to get that feeling. One part of that would be high starting stats as that was a component of Dark Sun in 2e and so in this case high starting stats would make lots of sense.

[PeteNutButter]

Your premise is wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a high stat or two. The game does not fall apart. The game was designed with the possibility of having a 20 at 1st level - be lucky enough to roll an 18 and apply +2 racial modifier to it. Even with Point Buy you can have a 17 at 1st level which can become an 18 at 4th along with a 16. Spend for two 15s, apply +2 racial modifier to one, raise both by 1 at 4th level, and that's not even accounting for the second +1 racial modifier races have. You can have a 17 and 16 at 1st level with Point Buy and not care one iota about having two 8s in dump stats you'll never use, like IN and CH. You don't have to particularly like high stats but how dare you say other people shouldn't like them either. You are not a superior player or DM because you don't use high scores.

...the numbers you are quoting are what I am arguing for. There is a reason why in 5e you can't point buy past 15, while previous editions allowed for point buy to 17. That reason is the heart and soul of my point. They thought long and hard about the point buy and wanted to make sure no one would start with an 18 or higher. I am in no way against minnaxing your point buy to 3 15s that you also bump racially.

I am merely pointing out that since they put that limit in the point buy we need to realize by rolling we screw it all up. By doing generous rolls (such as rerolling 1s) you are greatly increasing your chances of screwing it up worse. Everyone can and will play the game however they like. I am merely preaching that if you do so, recognize that the game was balanced around the point buy/standard array.

In contrast I was all for doing the generous rolls in 3.5/p because there is no number crunch. Stats are just one number in a sea of base attack and magic weapons that don't have as much impact on the game.

Back to 5e, I made this mistake with my first campaign and I am putting it out there so others can learn from my mistake. Take it or leave it. It probably won't matter as much if your group isn't full of power gamers, but mine were doing godly things by level 12.

[Knaight]

To all those saying High stats done matter or affect balance, that is simply not true. First
Y, if one character's stats are significantly higher than another's it creates an inherent imbalance that is difficult to overcome. When one character has to spen three ASIs on their primary stat and another simply spends one and nets two feats,math at is problematic. Secondly, the CR system, especially at lower levels is based around the assumption character so not start with a stat higher than 15 before racial modifiers. The entire game is built around those assumptions. It is true bounded accuracy won't break thanks to the hard 20 caps, but balance is still significantly affected.

The difference between the characters here is a whopping +2 to rolls, and that's with a two ASI difference - at most. If the feats are better than the ASI, then the lower stat character can take them as well, and keep only the +2 difference. If they're worse and the higher stat character is taking them because their stat is maximized, then the lower stat character is outright catching up the whole time.

The numerical balance of 5e is really not that delicate.

[djreynolds]

The ability cap keeps the game close. But rolling well allows for feat selections, someone may not see as practical.

I've never played a paladin with GWM at 4th level, because I'm still trying to max str and con. And then at 16th level what's the point.

Have fun. Just make sure everyone has equal stats and the DM ups the CR. I'd like to play a cleric with shield master, but really with the standard array in the AL, I would never select that.

Rolling stats, just open up different feat choices you may never select and opens up alternative choices.

We played without feats for a long time, its not bad. But stuff like shield master is fun. Rolling high stats make these choices feasible.

[Magnetized]

I've never been part of a game that required everyone to roll 3d6 and stick with what they got. The vast majority of the time it's always been 4d6b3. There are some cases of people getting lucky/unlucky, but I've been fortunate enough to always be at a table where everyone was good-natured about it. The majority of the time people end up with something close to the standard array anyway.

If a DM is worried about some overshadowing multi-class shenanigans when a players wins the lottery with their stat rolls, they can just limit or not allowing multi-classing. If a player starts with a 20 in their main stat vice a 16 or 17, they will at most gain two feats out of the deal. Two feats on a character aren't game breaking. Hell, 3 out of 5 times one of those feats is gonna get used on a resilience (con/wis) feat just for quality of life depending on the class.

Fun at every table I've ever been at seems to come from two aspects of the game: Rolling dice and making choices. Sometimes the dice are lucky; sometimes they aren't. Sometimes you make a good choice; sometimes you don't. Just remember to have fun and try to ensure everyone else is having fun too. I've never played with anyone in any capacity that liked to see what amounts to a "nerf" without their dislike being fueled by jealousy. The same person that says "Oh no, Jimmy rolled an 18 and gets to start with a 20 strength on his fighter and I only get to start with a 17!!!" will be the one to gloat for hours about getting to start a character with 20 in their primary stat.

[Telok]

Question: If point buying character abilities is more fair then rolling then isn't point buying all rolls in the game more fair than rolling?

I mean, the whole arguement here comes down to 'fair = fun' versus 'rolling = fun' right? So why not go all in and either point buy it all or roll it all?

[gameogre]

16,16,15,13,11,9
Healing Surge
5 min short rests
1 hour long rests
Shields will be Shattered house rule
Max hit points
Cleave through if one hit kill.
Hero points that give extra turns

Means I can just throw the crappy encounter guidelines out of the frigging window and just make fun wild and totally awesome encounters at them like a boss!

We don't just have goblins attacking!

We have goblins attacking and destroying the wizards tower, killing the town wizard and unleashing slime and oozes while the traveling circus erupts in chaos because the goblins unchained the manticore and displacer beast!

[KorvinStarmast]

Ugh, speak for yourself. Rolling stats is a barbaric practice that should have ended when we realized that characters were supposed to last longer than a session.
You're kidding, right? My first Magic User, rolled stats, (A 16 Int which was IIRN the only stat above 12) was only good for helping me with an XP bonus, no other boosts was played for a year and a half. The reason he didn't play longer is because we all went off to college and the group broke up.

I guess we didn't know how to have fun back when the game was young. *eye roll*.

*Insert gratuitous grumpy "get offa my lawn" here*

[Gastronomie]

Ugh, speak for yourself. Rolling stats is a barbaric practice that should have ended when we realized that characters were supposed to last longer than a session. It's stressful not to be able to reliably achieve baseline competence, and it's super not fun to have stats that are way lower than your buddy's stats just because a few d6s decided they didn't like you on one very important roll. A single die roll should almost never have a huge and permanent effect on a character, which is why I'm also against rolling for HP (thankfully 5e hard-codes in the ability to take the average) and why I'm against save-or-die effects.

Copy-pasting my opinions on this from the other thread, "Stats: to roll or not to roll":

This is probably where my opinion differs from a lot of people in a D&D forum. I believe that the player characters don't necesarrily have to "contribute" the same amount in a particular game. I already mentioned this earlier, but if the only moment when you feel D&D is fun is when your character is kicking ass, I don't think that's a really good thing 'cause then you're only enjoying approx. 1/4 to 1/5 of the game. You need to enjoy everything. Everything, including when the other characters are kicking ass.
At least I don't mind if my characters don't excel in combat, as long as I can role-play him/her the way I intended. I get happy when other player's Barbarian goes crit + highest possible damage roll and smacks off heads and limbs, even if my necromancer is just repeating a dumb low-damage Chill Touch besides him. I get happy when the warlock casts Fly on the Halfling Beast Master's wolf and it results in an insanely badass FLYING WOLFRIDER HALFLING, even if my paladin doesn't have to do with that at all.
Characters don't need to be equivlent. At least I don't think so.

[Pex]

If your game collapses because players are successful 5% more of the time starting with an 18 instead of a 16 the problem lies with your DMing skills, not the game.

[D.U.P.A.]

The problem arises between class balance. Some classes rely more on equipment, while others more on stats. If rolling very well, you will end with classes like Monk or Bladesinger with better AC than the Fighter or Paladin, which are supposed to be frontliners. Having basically a Wizard with 20 AC at 2nd level compared to a Fighter who can only go to 19 by taking a shield and defense fighting style makes little sense. Then players should be rolling for equipment too.

[Icewraith]

It's really not a problem. I like picking up feats instead of another boring +2, I feel that additional capability gives an immensely better feeling of progression than a numbers increase. The best time to grab your feat is 4th level, so it's there for you to use for as long as possible. Sure, my Paladin could get +2 to Str or Cha, or he could grab shield master instead and get a bonus action trip every round! I used that feat nearly every round, whereas a +2 to Str would have affected 1 of every 20 STR based rolls. Big whoop.

For people who don't like rolling because of the one guy who gets left in the dust (I've totally been that guy, too), the solution is to let everyone at the table pick the set of rolls they want to use. Suddenly you don't have inter-party stat imbalance issues. If monsters have a slightly harder time hitting you can just use harder hitting monsters or use tactics so they gain advantage.

The default point buy is... well, it's boring. You have barely enough points to be competent in your main stat(s) and everything else but Con gets dumped. Maybe your fighter has 10 Cha and 8 Dex instead of vice versa or 8 and 8. My group has made a bunch of characters for 5e using point buy, and they're all distributed about the same stat-wise. If you roll and someone rolls well, the game isn't suddenly thrown off-balance if the Rogue has a 14 Int, whether or not your tertiary stats are at -1 or +3 you won't be using them most of the time.

DMs, stop being stingy with the point buy or let your players roll! Rolling creates more dynamic characters with unusual strengths and weaknesses, and having more room for feats isn't a bad thing.

[bid]

The default point buy is... well, it's boring. You have barely enough points to be competent in your main stat(s) and everything else but Con gets dumped.
I agree it's pretty boring, but calling it barely enough is abusive. What's wrong with starting with 16?

Every race can manage 16 16 14 10 10 8 or 16 14 14 12 12 8. Mountain dwarves and half-elves can get 16 16 14 12 10 8. Those stats are way above average and worthy of heroes.


Rolled dice is unfair : 33% won't have any 16+, while 25% will have 2 or more. And if you use a single set, maybe you don't get a second good stat and can only go SAD. Using whatever technique to boost the roll doesn't change the unfairness, the weak might get a 16 but the lucky will get multiple 17s.

[mer.c]

To me, stat-rolling is a tradeoff.

The biggest problem I've run into isn't encounter difficulty going out the window. Rather, it's parties where someone feels a little behind the others and gets discouraged. That's a problem. Balance can be a problem, an extra few stats or feats isn't going to break a campaign in a way a DM can't compensate for pretty easily. At least not in my (admittedly limited) experience. But on the plus side, it leads to character builds and even RP that wouldn't happen otherwise, and a good deal of variance. That can be a lot of fun.

I prefer rolling stats (we might try a shared matrix next go, too). I can see why someone wouldn't. And I'd never tell someone they're barbaric or wrong because their preferences come down on one side or the other.

[ZenBear]

Tangent to the main topic: How many DMs here would be willing and interested in running an all-optimized party? I'm talking higher point buy as best suits the character builds and team synergy. It's balanced among the party, but the DM has to get creative in scaling encounters to be a challenge but not necessarily aiming to kill.

[MaxWilson]

I've never been part of a game that required everyone to roll 3d6 and stick with what they got. The vast majority of the time it's always been 4d6b3. There are some cases of people getting lucky/unlucky, but I've been fortunate enough to always be at a table where everyone was good-natured about it. The majority of the time people end up with something close to the standard array anyway.

The best part is when someone rolls really well on stats, and then gets cocky and does something risky/foolish on their first adventure and dies horribly at first level. Heheheh.

Stat rolling is not the game. It's just the precursor to the game.

[djreynolds]

The problem arises between class balance. Some classes rely more on equipment, while others more on stats. If rolling very well, you will end with classes like Monk or Bladesinger with better AC than the Fighter or Paladin, which are supposed to be frontliners. Having basically a Wizard with 20 AC at 2nd level compared to a Fighter who can only go to 19 by taking a shield and defense fighting style makes little sense. Then players should be rolling for equipment too.

I feel you.

But the trade off is a fighter who is more skilled at earlier levels, he not just a tank. He can get beat up and dragged to the back. The rogue gives him his bow and the fighter can actually hit with it because he has more than a 12 in dexterity.

I play with the standard array, and it is boring. I feel trapped. We all optimize. Of course we do. But the 27 point buy in forces you to place stats here or here or you are not relevant.

The problem isn't us though or our opinion. The problem is we must choose an ASI or feat. And ASI are boring.

I have been playing without multiclassing and feats for a long time until recently, feats are very fun. I mean you can really build a character around a feat, instead of the other way around.

The game was designed initially to be played without multiclassing and feats, look at the ASI/feat progression, its based on class level.

I would like it if at 5th and 10th level you could get a feat. But it won't happen so...

[PotatoGolem]

These sorts of threads are precisely what a new DM SHOULDN'T read, because it'll give them the impression that this is the "correct" way to do things, as opposed to the way that one guy on the Internet likes. Your group prefers standard array or 27 point buy, cool. My group prefers 34 point buy (makes characters less homogenous because you can afford points in traditional dump stats) and a free feat. Some groups like every rolling system under the sun. Some gtoups want to play everyman as an unlikely hero, some want to be chosen heroes of the gods. None of these are more right or better for new DMs.

[Sir cryosin]

Just jumping in here only read the op first posted. My DM has use roll 4d6 drop the lowest rerolling any 1's. Yes we have had characters starting with 18 or a 20 stat. But I'll tell you I have had so many characters died. I'm some what of a power gamer to. I feel and my party feels and the Dm that it's not that op or it doesnt take away from the game being challenging. And another thing we do is sents we get higher rolls most of the time we average 15. But back on my point it is we can pick class and race that don't really synergize too well and have fun. With it

[Ralanr]

My DM actually had us stop rolling due to how lucky we were in stats (my roommate would always have an 18). She instead introduced a 10 point buy system and stated that we cannot have a 16 in any stat at level one.

This has made many saving throws and ability checks much harder in lower levels, which does increase the element of risk to the situation. That and now our dice seem to hate us (We've rolled so many sevens that it's not even funny anymore).

We actually had our first deaths because of it, and death saves are becoming more common. It's both terrifying and exciting! Last session I almost lost my dwarf ranger, not to death saves, but to being carried off by a wyvern when he was stabilized.

My DM also has a habit of hard encounters. Considering how we fought two wyverns in a 5 man party with four level 5's and one level 4. At least I think that's a hard encounter for us.

[Sir cryosin]

My DM actually had us stop rolling due to how lucky we were in stats (my roommate would always have an 18). She instead introduced a 10 point buy system and stated that we cannot have a 16 in any stat at level one.

This has made many saving throws and ability checks much harder in lower levels, which does increase the element of risk to the situation. That and now our dice seem to hate us (We've rolled so many sevens that it's not even funny anymore).

We actually had our first deaths because of it, and death saves are becoming more common. It's both terrifying and exciting! Last session I almost lost my dwarf ranger, not to death saves, but to being carried off by a wyvern when he was stabilized.

My DM also has a habit of hard encounters. Considering how we fought two wyverns in a 5 man party with four level 5's and one level 4. At least I think that's a hard encounter for us.

My DM has use a party of 3 lv 1 fighter a black wyvern as are first encounter to a new campaign it swooped in knocked the rouge out the Goliath storm sorcerer just made it with his stones endurance and I was sitting at 1 hp ( me paladin) if we used point buy we would of been dead. Right off the back.

[D.U.P.A.]

I feel you.

But the trade off is a fighter who is more skilled at earlier levels, he not just a tank. He can get beat up and dragged to the back. The rogue gives him his bow and the fighter can actually hit with it because he has more than a 12 in dexterity.

I play with the standard array, and it is boring. I feel trapped. We all optimize. Of course we do. But the 27 point buy in forces you to place stats here or here or you are not relevant.

The problem isn't us though or our opinion. The problem is we must choose an ASI or feat. And ASI are boring.

I have been playing without multiclassing and feats for a long time until recently, feats are very fun. I mean you can really build a character around a feat, instead of the other way around.

The game was designed initially to be played without multiclassing and feats, look at the ASI/feat progression, its based on class level.

I would like it if at 5th and 10th level you could get a feat. But it won't happen so...

AC is one of most important features of the character, as often it means a difference between life and death. A Str Paladin becomes totally useless without armor. At 10 AC you cannot really be in front in a fight. And about Fighter, if he is Str based, probably he will not have Dex more 12, also if it is built for melee, along with fighting style and such, is pretty lame you are forced to do something you are not used to. Because this way you have ranged characters with high armor and melee character with low armor, which is a paradox. Then there are other stuff, like Initiative, but this is not that essential as AC, but still important.

[KorvinStarmast]

If your game collapses because players are successful 5% more of the time starting with an 18 instead of a 16 the problem lies with your DMing skills, not the game.
Yep. Some folks would rather blame the game.

Stat rolling is not the game. It's just the precursor to the game. Yep. True in the beginning, true now.

A point of comparison: stats are more important than they were then due in part to how each saving throw is tied to a stat. The original template was where each class had more or less advantageous saves based on class, nothing to do with stats. (And dwarves got bonues).

After pondering this for a bit, I liked the idea behind the old system, but I prefer the current system now that I've seen it for a while. The nod to the old system where two categories of save are "proficient" I have mixed feelings about, but it mostly makes sense.

Except: I still don't get why Paladins don't have a proficiency in Con saves. (Wisdom, Charisma) but maybe that's to ensure that the fighter's Con save makes him generally more durable?

[Telok]

One thing that I've noticed while perusing the monsters is that the save dcs of cr 1ish critters generally run about dc 14, the cr 8ish run about dc 17, and the cr 15s are around dc 20. So the save dcs increase by 6 points while the proficency bonus increases by 3 points. Thus it seems that the numbers of the game are predicated on characters spending ASIs to boost stats, especially the save stats.

It appears that if a character doesn't have an 18 in their primary stat and major save stat by level 15 then that character is behind the curve set by the printed monsters. Thus starting with a 14 in the character's primary stats means not taking any feats in order to keep up with the expected dcs.

The AD&D DMG discusses the pros and cons of several dice, point buy, and hybrid methods of generating character attributes. So the issues raised in this thread have already be hashed through 30 years ago.

[Sigreid]

Except: I still don't get why Paladins don't have a proficiency in Con saves. (Wisdom, Charisma) but maybe that's to ensure that the fighter's Con save makes him generally more durable?

I believe it's two fold. First, the paladin being basically a holy roller, though for an ideal and not a god in this edition has the devs viewing him as being as much priest as fighter. Second, once that aura kicks in, it probably doesn't matter what their proficient saves are. :smallwink:

[Morcleon]

Question: If point buying character abilities is more fair then rolling then isn't point buying all rolls in the game more fair than rolling?

I mean, the whole arguement here comes down to 'fair = fun' versus 'rolling = fun' right? So why not go all in and either point buy it all or roll it all?

Because character creation is different from being in game. Rolling is only fun when it's not deciding what kind of character you're playing. That should be for the player to decide.

[Theodoxus]

To the OP, a resounding NO is in order. I LOVE me some high powered games. My original Skulls and Shackles game started in Pathfinder and converted to 5E when it came out. The characters started with an array of 18/18/16/16/14/14. It was a blast!
My current game had everyone roll 5d6D2,R1 - even then, there wasn't an amazing set array. But! And this is super duper primo important; two things: 1) I can handle and enjoy powerful characters - it lets me use powerful enemies against them that can bring the epic feel of not 'just Bob the Plumber turned adventurer because [reason]', but the all-important "unknowing son of an ancient and forgotten god thrown in with my brothers and sisters from another parent." and probably more important for this discussion, 2) I don't use any stat increasing items. ever. Not even consumables. 20 is the highest anyone can get (We haven't gotten to level 20 for the barbi cap to come into play - yet). So, attributes don't break BA. It doesn't matter to me if every stat is a 20 - I can still throw things at the players that can deal with it - because my monsters break BA, but my players can't.

Again, it's about that epic feel. I've played my share of games where the toons are schmucks crawling out of the sands of time to gain power and slowly become gods... how boring is that!? I mean, once in a while, on a lark, sure... but I don't want to play myself in some fantasy setting, if I did, I'd go back to LARPing... No, I want to be the superheroic protagonist in the epic tale of conquest. I want to be Master Skywalker in RotJ, not whiny mcwhinerston Luke in a New Hope.

YMM(and probably does)V, but for me - roll them stats, get them 18s and rock it like a demigod!

[MaxWilson]

One thing that I've noticed while perusing the monsters is that the save dcs of cr 1ish critters generally run about dc 14, the cr 8ish run about dc 17, and the cr 15s are around dc 20. So the save dcs increase by 6 points while the proficency bonus increases by 3 points. Thus it seems that the numbers of the game are predicated on characters spending ASIs to boost stats, especially the save stats.

Or having access to more spells like Bless and Circle of Power, or gaining abilities like Lucky/Mage Slayer/Indomitable/Dark One's Blessing/Bardic Inspiration/Greater Restoration/Dispel Magic/etc.

ASIs are a pretty crummy way to boost your survivability.

[Telok]

Or having access to more spells like Bless and Circle of Power, or gaining abilities like Lucky/Mage Slayer/Indomitable/Dark One's Blessing/Bardic Inspiration/Greater Restoration/Dispel Magic/etc.

ASIs are a pretty crummy way to boost your survivability.They are however also the only way you are gaurenteed to have access to improve saves and ckecks and the only wat that doesn't require actions, spells, ranges, and other use limits. Thus the ASIs got baked into the math while the others are all situational bonuses. Essentially out of the four ASIs from level 1 to 16 you are assumed to spend two or three on boring, incremental, stat improvements to you highest single stat.

Basically unless you roll stats the only real difference between to characters with the same class and subclass is spell choice and magic items.

Is there any online database of saved characters to data mine? That'd be interesting if it included a rolled/point buy check on the sheets.

[krunchyfrogg]

point buy ftw

[Sigreid]

My group and I like rolling stats. I can't speak for them but I personally hate the sameness of array and point buy.

Sometimes we even change the rolling method sometimes. One game I wanted to DM for epic heroes so the method was 5d6B3, roll 3 arrays straight down and take the array you like best. Stats don't make or break the game.

[Giant2005]

I prefer rolling too. A good roll can make builds possible which just otherwise wouldn't be feasible at all. Rolling increases options and more options is generally better.
Although I am biased in that I enjoy the thrill of rolling anyway. Even if the point buy had more points to spend and could even start with abilities higher than 15, I'd still prefer to roll.

[JellyPooga]

I'm an advocate of point-buy, normally.

If I must roll stats, I'm a fan of using d4 instead of d6. Any of the following methods suit me:

4d4 (4-16, average:10) - Nice sharp bell-curve, making "average" stats the norm and "exceptional" ones noteworthy. I can accept the 1:256 chance of a stat higher than point-buy allows. Not so sure about the possibility of rolling those low numbers though. 5d4b4 bumps the average up a little and reduces frequency of those low numbers.

3d4+4 (7-16, average: 11.5) - The bell-curve is shallower, making extraordinary stats less of an unusual occurrence, but that minimum of 7 means no completely crippled Ability Scores and the higher average should make characters feel heroic. This is my favourite method.

5d4 (5-20, average 12.5) - This one I call the "fools method". The bell-curve is insane and you'll be (un)lucky to get a stat over 14 or below 10. The possibility of getting a base score of 20 doesn't sit well with me, but when the odds are steeper than one in a thousand, I don't expect to see many (if any...ever). That high average means generally more competent characters, but the bell-curve means you'll see much less specifically powerful ones.

[LaserFace]

Rolling is great. Roll for everything. Remind even those who take high average HP instead of rolling are weak warriors that have no place in Valhalla.

[RickAllison]

Rolling is great. Roll for everything. Remind even those who take high average HP instead of rolling are weak warriors that have no place in Valhalla.

For the glory of Odin!!!

[Elminster298]

I have used many different systems in my 22 years of playing D&D. The two most important considerations for what system to use are 1) Does it fit your particular game? High power, low power, average Joe, demigod? 2) Everyone agrees to the system before the game starts. The DM can't play the game by themself. The game is for everyone to have fun. If most want a certain system but some want another, run the more popular one now and the other one next campaign. Hard, solid "rules" like this(or no multi-classing, no feats, race restrictions, etc.) should NEVER be "the norm".

Two systems for 5th ed that I have used a couple times that seem to go over REALLY well are
1) Roll 4d6b3. If you don't like your rolls you can choose either standard array or reroll. If you reroll you keep your scores no matter what.
2) Standard array. Characters gain +1 ability score(can't be traded for feats) every 4 levels based on total character level. Class ASIs are gained as normal and can be a feat or +2 ability score. This, in my personal experience, has encouraged players to rock some amazing role play characters that would be mechanically unplayable otherwise. Seems to really up the individuality of characters.

[BW022]

I hate rolling and always use point-buy, but I find your post puzzling.



A single roll of 16 is imbalancing allowing a character to start with an 18, but if they roll an 18 then the PC starts with a 20. +10% to hit and 2 dmg might not be obviously game breaking but it is in a bounded system. Now the biggest problem IMO is the PC can pretty much never improve. ...


How does the standard rolling method solve this? 4d6 lowest could still give you an 18 to start with. About 1 in 15 characters will have at least one 18, 1 in 4 will have at least one 17+, and 3 of 4 will have a 16+. With five players rolling, 1 in 3 of your campaigns will have an 18, most will have a 17+, and almost assured someone will have an 16+. All before racial.

High stats is not the problem with rolling. Fairness is the problem. In a five person party with 4d6 arrays... it is 50% likely that the difference between arrays is 17 points or higher. There is less than a 1% that the difference will be less than 7. Other dice rolling methods seek to reduce the chance of these problems. Rerolling 1s flattens this difference massively. Your 50% spread number likely goes from 17+ to about 8+. You does variations which don't affect the maximum (for example, you can only reroll 1s if you don't have a 6 -- or a 5 and 6). In such cases, you'll never increase the chance of getting 18s (or 16s or 17s) but will still dramatically reduce the chance of large spreads between each player's array.



Be fair and make the players earn their stats. End rant.


How is anyone rolling stats earning it? How is someone playing with an (17, 16, 15, 15, 11, 9) (83 total) array fair vs. someone with a (14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8) (70 total) when that something like 90% likely to happen in a 5 person 4d6 roll?

If you want to limit starting ability scores to 16 (or 15)... fine. Just do so. 4d6, 3 highest, capped at 16. Done. That issue is solved. Otherwise, you are just changing the chance of a high score and not terribly much considering the high chances of an 18 (or certainly 17) you are willing to accept.

If you want fairness... then you'd better reconsider point-buy or look dice rolling methods which have fairness -- roll 4 attributes, convert to point-buy and buy the rest; make up a number of point-buy arrays and roll to see which you get; everyone rolls 4d6 and generates one score, then players combine arrays and use the same array (in any order); roll 4d6, sum the highest array, all others can add that number of points randomly to their current array; etc.

If you want players to earn their stats... I don't see how rolling is earning scores any more than point-buy.

[R.Shackleford]

What the title says. People like to roll stats, because it's fun and part of the D&D tradition. 5e isn't really balanced for it. If you want to roll stats stick to the rules in the phb. Do not incorporate older stat rolls like rerolling ones or rolling many sets.

A single roll of 16 is imbalancing allowing a character to start with an 18, but if they roll an 18 then the PC starts with a 20. +10% to hit and 2 dmg might not be obviously game breaking but it is in a bounded system. Now the biggest problem IMO is the PC can pretty much never improve. They start feeling like a god at lvl 1. And then they will take more feats since they needn't boost their primary stat, compounding this issue the higher they go in level. Multiple high scores start pushing into ground where builds can multi class into very MAD characters and end up seriously outshining other members of the party or the party as a whole.

Be fair and make the players earn their stats. End rant.

EDIT: I am aiming this rant at new DMs that may not understand the ramifications of overpowered level one PCs in 5e. Generous rolls may be appropriate for your table.

Stats don't really matter as much as you think.

You could have all 20's and that doesn't mean you will make the right choices.

I would just as soon give everyone 20's across the board and not worry about it.

[Gastronomie]

point buy ftw[/Animate Thread]

[mgshamster]

point buy ftw

Why do you keep necro-ing old threads?

[RossN]

I've definitely seen some excessively generous rolling methods, even on here (I've actually been unable to create compelling characters because they have ridiculously high stats) but overall I much prefer rolling.

For one thing I'm tired of seeing everyone except the Wizard dropping an '8' into Intelligence, especially when the resulting nominal dimwit is played as crafty as his or her player.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Why do you keep necro-ing old threads?

I've noticed this trend today.

That being said... Down with ability sores!

[Reaper34]

Anyone ever played a game where they had to take the stats they rolled in order. 1st roll str, 2ed roll dex, ect. makes things interesting.

[Elminster298]

Anyone ever played a game where they had to take the stats they rolled in order. 1st roll str, 2ed roll dex, ect. makes things interesting.

I did quite a few times back in 3.x but not in 5th ed. I definitely enjoy it a lot for a quick creation game of generally short duration. Most of these games never made it much past 5th level.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Anyone ever played a game where they had to take the stats they rolled in order. 1st roll str, 2ed roll dex, ect. makes things interesting.

Maybe, but I think it makes things boring.

The game essentially tells you what you have to play or else you are going to suck.

[Zman]

I'm an advocate of point-buy, normally.

If I must roll stats, I'm a fan of using d4 instead of d6. Any of the following methods suit me:

4d4 (4-16, average:10) - Nice sharp bell-curve, making "average" stats the norm and "exceptional" ones noteworthy. I can accept the 1:256 chance of a stat higher than point-buy allows. Not so sure about the possibility of rolling those low numbers though. 5d4b4 bumps the average up a little and reduces frequency of those low numbers.

3d4+4 (7-16, average: 11.5) - The bell-curve is shallower, making extraordinary stats less of an unusual occurrence, but that minimum of 7 means no completely crippled Ability Scores and the higher average should make characters feel heroic. This is my favourite method.

5d4 (5-20, average 12.5) - This one I call the "fools method". The bell-curve is insane and you'll be (un)lucky to get a stat over 14 or below 10. The possibility of getting a base score of 20 doesn't sit well with me, but when the odds are steeper than one in a thousand, I don't expect to see many (if any...ever). That high average means generally more competent characters, but the bell-curve means you'll see much less specifically powerful ones.

4d4. I feel like this fits a low to moderate power game, mean of 10.0, standard deviation of 2.24, and less than a 6% chance of rolling a 14-16.

3d4+4. I feel like this is better than 4d4, mean of 11.5, standard deviation of 1.94, and just under a 16% chance of rolling a 14-16.

5d4. I feel like this is Rosetta high powered, mean of 12.5, standard deviation of 2.5, and just under a 35% chance of rolling a 14-20, just under a 30% chance of rolling a 14-16, and just under a 12% chance of rolling 16-20.


I feel like 4d4+2 is a happy medium. Mean of 12, standard deviation of 2.24, and just under 26% chance of rolling a 14-18, with less than 2% chance of rolling a 17-18.


For reference 4d6b3 has a mean of 12.24 with a standard deviation of 2.85.



Personally I'm a fan of Point buy in most circumstances. My Tweaks includes a 42pt buy method, it's essentially normal 5e 30 point buy with a 6pt option and a 16pt option.

[mgshamster]

Maybe, but I think it makes things boring.

The game essentially tells you what you have to play or else you are going to suck.

It can be fun for short games - you turn it into a "what can I make with these stats that's still fun to play" mini game. But anything longer than 1-2 sessions and it stops being fun when you're unlucky with your rolls.

[RickAllison]

It can be fun for short games - you turn it into a "what can I make with these stats that's still fun to play" mini game. But anything longer than 1-2 sessions and it stops being fun when you're unlucky with your rolls.

I can see it being entertaining with a high-fatality campaign :smallbiggrin:

[Elminster298]

I can see it being entertaining with a high-fatality campaign :smallbiggrin:

Meatgrinders are insanely fun with this stat allotment! Especially with a funny group of people. Used to do improv comedy back in my drama days and a bunch of us used to play together for some amazing games.

[Sigreid]

Anyone ever played a game where they had to take the stats they rolled in order. 1st roll str, 2ed roll dex, ect. makes things interesting.

1e that was just how we rolled...pun intended.

[Reaper34]

1e when you made 3 characters and hoped it would be enough to get to 3ed lvl. the good ol days.

[Sigreid]

1e when you made 3 characters and hoped it would be enough to get to 3ed lvl. the good ol days.

Indeed. I remember playing a thief more than once because it was literally the only class my attributes qualified me for...having no requirements.

[Reaper34]

Indeed. I remember playing a thief more than once because it was literally the only class my attributes qualified me for...having no requirements.

been there. *yells at the kids in the yard* "AND YES IT WAS THIEF NOT ROGUE!" I sometimes miss my 5 ac and the fear of losing yet another character to a campaign. now point buy, good rolls or bad ones you can pretty much survive unless you get stupid. most of the time.

[MeeposFire]

One advantage in AD&D is that for the most part ability scores did not increase your stats or decrease them unless you hit the relative extremes and even then it was not that much until you had crazy high stats.

For instance having a 9 str fighter was not much different really than a 17 str fighter (only a difference of +1 to hit and damage) and so you could have lowish stats and still not be mechanically too bad off. This made having low stat characters potentially interesting since you could still be decent especially if you had a decent stat somewhere else to leverage (my fave for a fighter was high int to get more proficiencies).

[ad_hoc]

Most of the replies miss the point of the OP.

It isn't that the PCs are now too powerful to be threatened by monsters.

It's that they don't have anywhere to go.

I think if you roll for stats you should increase the stat maximums to 24 (or whatever).

If you want higher powered PCs then you should adjust accordingly.

[Giant2005]

Most of the replies miss the point of the OP.

It isn't that the PCs are now too powerful to be threatened by monsters.

It's that they don't have anywhere to go.

I think that for the most part, people understand that just fine. It just isn't really worth discussing.
The OP places so much emphasis on stats that it is simply absurd. Your abilities are such a small part of progression that his statement was so hyperbolic that we need to invent a new word that means "more hyperbolic than hyperbole".

[Slipperychicken]

I find that players enjoy easy mode. They don't really want a challenge. They just want to pretend that they faced real danger, but always just happened to pull through despite rigid tactics and atrocious decisions. They are entirely willing to live out that fantasy for decades if given the chance. This is why players like extremely generous RNG mechanics: It makes their experience insultingly easy (to the extent that they have a very hard time losing), but the vestigial random element still allows players to delude themselves into thinking there was a real chance of something bad happening.


Conversely, players accustomed to easy mode achieve untold levels of childish sourness when they realize bad things can happen to their avatars, and they can't always faceroll everything they see. In a sense it's hard to blame them: losing and facing consequences isn't exactly fantastical. But on the other hand, it is paradoxical to always want to feel like you have chances to fail, but lash out in a tearful fury the moment that failure actually comes to pass.

[tsotate]

Most of the replies miss the point of the OP.

It isn't that the PCs are now too powerful to be threatened by monsters.

It's that they don't have anywhere to go.

I don't think they miss that point, they simply disagree with it. Feats are much more interesting than ASIs, but stats have such a proportionally large effect in this edition that most classes can't afford to take any interesting feats until the average game is almost over. Why do you think Vumans are so popular?

Characters who start with high stats can spend their ASIs picking up things that are fun and give them options, instead of just making them more effective.

[ad_hoc]

I don't think they miss that point, they simply disagree with it. Feats are much more interesting than ASIs, but stats have such a proportionally large effect in this edition that most classes can't afford to take any interesting feats until the average game is almost over. Why do you think Vumans are so popular?

Characters who start with high stats can spend their ASIs picking up things that are fun and give them options, instead of just making them more effective.

This illustrates my point perfectly.

If having 20s in starting stats does not unbalance the game because it can cope, then, having 16s is also fine. You can't have it both ways. Stats can't be so powerful and important that you absolutely need to have them at 20, but also not be such a big deal that inflating stats to 20 early on doesn't have much of an effect on the game.

My point is that if you start stats at 20 then you are taking away the interesting choice of whether or not to take a feat. You are (almost) making feats mandatory, which is not what some (many) players want. You are also making the feats less interesting because each character will have them. You will start to see the same feats over and over.

This is why feats should be narrow and ASIs broad. If you want raw, broad power, go for the ASI. If you want your character to have a niche ability that makes them special, go for that. Everyone taking those abilities for every ASI allotment removes the ability of feats to create special characters.

Finally, if choosing between an ASI and a feat is undesirable in a game, then a houserule should specifically address it. Instead of inflating stats just for that purpose, you could do a number of things like give out free feats or give out both on the level, or whatever. I wouldn't do that for a number of reasons, but if that is the issue, there are better ways to address it.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Point Buy is the only fair and equitable way of constructing characters.

That being said, I'm surprised there's not a rolling scheme that works like "roll 1d8+7 for each stat". That would seem to get everything in line with point buy's starting range.

[N810]

Nope, you have to pick:

race
class
background
(in order)

then rolls a d20 for each stat
(in order)



... Muhahaaaa !!! :xykon:

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyone ever played a game where they had to take the stats they rolled in order. 1st roll str, 2ed roll dex, ect. makes things interesting Yeah, that's how I played OD&D and 1e for about ten years. It worked. We had fun.

For the OP: a rolled 16 at lvl 1 does not unbalance the game. Bounded accuracy.

[Theodoxus]

Point Buy is the only fair and equitable way of constructing characters.

That being said, I'm surprised there's not a rolling scheme that works like "roll 1d8+7 for each stat". That would seem to get everything in line with point buy's starting range.

I suggested exactly that method sometime in 2014... back when the original discussion on a fair and balanced generation method was brought up.

I do take some contention with your premise on fair and equitable though. My table typically rolls, but we group roll, and everyone votes on the set they want to use. It's like Elite Array by group think. Everyone uses the same stats, but can place them wherever they like. Sometimes we allow modification (subtract a point from one to add to another, that kind of thing) but mostly just play it straight.

[Icewraith]

Point Buy is the only fair and equitable way of constructing characters.

That being said, I'm surprised there's not a rolling scheme that works like "roll 1d8+7 for each stat". That would seem to get everything in line with point buy's starting range.

Now this isn't true at all.

Watch:

"Everyone at the table roll 4d6b3 six times. You can use any set of rolls at the table to make your character."

Tell me how that's not fair. If someone rolls monster stats everyone at the table can keep up by picking that stat array. If someone wants to use a different array, it's their choice. Maybe they wanted to roll an Eldritch Knight with three 16s instead of taking the array that coughed up an 18 but not much else.

Also, the premise of point buy is inherently flawed. Point buy assumes that all stats have equal value to a character, when that's simply not the case once you've decided on a class.

You're going to see very little difference in combat performance between a fighter with 8 Charisma or 18 Charisma. Out of combat, having a higher Charisma score just means it's more likely the Fighter player will participate in roleplay, since they won't be worried about rolling with a -1 to back up anything they might say in character.

Quite frankly, you could drop a +6 bonus on most characters' bottom two stats without affecting combat balance significantly.

Point buy is great for ensuring combat balance between characters at an event where the players don't know each other ahead of time. It gets absolutely boring when you play with a group of people for a long time and no matter whose character it is you can predict the stat array based on the point buy and class.

[Shining Wrath]

I let the group roll stats, and then anyone could choose any array they wanted. That way we didn't wind up with gross inequality.
12, 17, 10, 9, 15, 17 was popular.

The difference to the DM between PC starts with those stats, and PC starts with standard array, is quite a bit less than adjusting for a party size of 3 or 5 or 6, and yet people don't write threads imploring us to always play with 4 PCs.

[Sigreid]

Point Buy is the only fair and equitable way of constructing characters.

That being said, I'm surprised there's not a rolling scheme that works like "roll 1d8+7 for each stat". That would seem to get everything in line with point buy's starting range.

I think you're conflating fair with equal. As long as everyone uses the same method it is by definition fair. The results when rolling may not be equal, but that doesn't mean the method is unfair.

[Theodoxus]

I let the group roll stats, and then anyone could choose any array they wanted. That way we didn't wind up with gross inequality.
12, 17, 10, 9, 15, 17 was popular.

The difference to the DM between PC starts with those stats, and PC starts with standard array, is quite a bit less than adjusting for a party size of 3 or 5 or 6, and yet people don't write threads imploring us to always play with 4 PCs.

That's a very good point. I've definitely felt more pressure when building encounters for 6 than dealing with a party of 4 who are playing gestalt characters. Not entirely sure why, but getting 6 people ample spotlight on their abilities I think is the major problem. Someone invariably gets about 4 seconds of 'table time' when they swing and miss and the next person (typically a caster who is agonizing over what spell to cast) uses 3 minutes to finalize a decision...

[Shining Wrath]

That's a very good point. I've definitely felt more pressure when building encounters for 6 than dealing with a party of 4 who are playing gestalt characters. Not entirely sure why, but getting 6 people ample spotlight on their abilities I think is the major problem. Someone invariably gets about 4 seconds of 'table time' when they swing and miss and the next person (typically a caster who is agonizing over what spell to cast) uses 3 minutes to finalize a decision...

I've been tempted to buy an egg timer ....

[Reaper34]

why exactly does ability generation need to be fair or equal? rolling stats gives random chance. characters don't need to be equal. part of the fun of role playing is that they are not equal. I've had some of the most fun rolling low abilities in a game and learning to compensate for them than rolling great stats.

I like to think of my character's as people (fictional people but still). biology is a roll of the dice to get innate abilities. easy mode 4d6b3 choose order hard mode 3d6 in order. then roll for race, after that roll a background, few people choose their childhood. make a table for it. then you choose class. many people have little choice of professions but lets assume these characters do. finish the build. see what you get and what you can do with it.

everyone has the same chances. usually that's as fair as it gets. and as with most things it's never going to be equal.

this is just my preferences. point buy makes characters too generic, for me anyway. in the end the right way is whatever works best at your table.

[mephnick]

"Everyone at the table roll 4d6b3 six times. You can use any set of rolls at the table to make your character."

This is what we use and my players like it a lot. Generally there's one array that's best for most classes, but we've had games where up to 3 different arrays get taken out of 4, including an all-odd array that made standard human alluring.