Advocating Stat Rolls

[GanonBoar]

I've seen quite a few threads recently that really hate rolling for stats. In their eyes, it's dumb, stupid, and something you should never do. I'm here to say the opposite, and tell everyone why people LIKE rolled stats.

First of all, I'm going to address some common arguments against rolling:
•"5E isn't meant for rolled stats"
Oh I'm sorry, random person on the internet, it was silly of me to not realize that you know absolutely everything about the game's creation and what was and wasn't meant to be used. Oh wait-you don't.

This argument is honestly the dumbest one I have seen. How, exactly, do you know this? Maybe you had one experience in which rolled stats led to a bad thing happening, but that doesn't mean that it should just never be used. Even the book lists it as the default.

•"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?

•"It makes the party unbalanced"
I doubt it. If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup. And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.


And here are reasons why rolls are good:
•D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?

•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.

• It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.


But honestly, people saying rolling is dumb isn't what irks me. It's because the threads that I have seen have been pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact. My table can do what we want, your table can do what you want. Bottom line is, this game is to have fun. It isn't competitive. Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.

[Gastronomie]

Totally agreed. Those threads are just dumb.

[OldTrees1]

I've seen quite a few threads recently that really hate rolling for stats. In their eyes, it's dumb, stupid, and something you should never do. I'm here to say the opposite, and tell everyone why people LIKE rolled stats.

So you refute 3 naïve arguments against rolling and mention 3 sophisticated arguments for rolling? :smallconfused: The unreasonable first half undermines the credibility of the reasonable second half. I understand you made this thread as a reaction, but you don't need to undermine yourself.


But honestly, people saying rolling is dumb isn't what irks me. It's because the threads that I have seen have been pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact. My table can do what we want, your table can do what you want. Bottom line is, this game is to have fun. It isn't competitive. Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.

This is what your OP should have been true to. List the reasons you like rolling. Address any reasonable cons with rolling*. But don't undermine your discussion by pitting the best of your position against the worst positions for the alternative.


*For example: Rolling is less apt if you already have a character idea in mind because your rolls might not be compatible. However one can look at how infrequent this manifests as an issue and notice that it is mitigated by your choice of rolling system ("3d6, in order" would be the least apt for this circumstance but "4d6b3 then assign to scores" tends to get compatible results).

[AmbientRaven]

Honestly, as a GM in a game for 1 year and 4 months, rolling stats is the biggest mistake I made. I wish so badly i had point buy that i am ending the game earlier than planned and planning a new one.

[Sjappo]

Honestly, as a GM in a game for 1 year and 4 months, rolling stats is the biggest mistake I made. I wish so badly i had point buy that i am ending the game earlier than planned and planning a new one.
Care to explain which problems you ran into which you wouldn't have encountered with standard array or point buy?

[AmbientRaven]

Care to explain which problems you ran into which you wouldn't have encountered with standard array or point buy?

- The "early game" is very unbalanced, without either throwing higher CR creatures at the party, whom then have abilities not deisgned for a party of that level, or you have to make up your own monsters/modify them
- Feats, feats everywhere. Polearm, Sentinel, Warcaster Clerics. Hideous combo.
- Late game balance isn't as fun either. a 9th level party can trounce even CR combat pretty easily.
- Magic items seem less fun, unless oyu also upscale them earlier
- Characters with bad rolls feel weak, end up leaving party or quitting (player re-rolling) which caused inconsistency issues. One player rolled a fighter with nothing over 12
- Harder to make up on the spot encounters, Re: balancing monsters

I am a player in a game with my play group, one of the guys is DMing and we went stat buy. Unanimous agreement that it is more fun due to needing to THINK about ASI vs feat as opposed to auto include feats.

just my experience and my groups experience and opinions

[Anonymouswizard]

I've seen quite a few threads recently that really hate rolling for stats. In their eyes, it's dumb, stupid, and something you should never do. I'm here to say the opposite, and tell everyone why people LIKE rolled stats.

First of all, I'm going to address some common arguments against rolling:

Okay, I'm personally pro-point buy, so I'm going to go through this and reply to each argument in turn.


•"5E isn't meant for rolled stats"
Oh I'm sorry, random person on the internet, it was silly of me to not realize that you know absolutely everything about the game's creation and what was and wasn't meant to be used. Oh wait-you don't.

This argument is honestly the dumbest one I have seen. How, exactly, do you know this? Maybe you had one experience in which rolled stats led to a bad thing happening, but that doesn't mean that it should just never be used. Even the book lists it as the default.

Actually pretty legitimate. I think what people mean is a combination of all the other points when they say this, but I'm not actually certain what it means.


•"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?

Yeah, here's the thing, in 5e Ability Scores have a large say in how capable you are at low levels. There's a big difference between having a 10 and a 14 in the Ability linked with a skill, and it's even bigger if you don't have proficiency. This subsides at higher levels as a character's proficiency bonus climbs, making a +1 worth less at level 10 than at level 1, but it still remains.

This is completely fine, but it means that there should be something to stop a character with 18/17/16/14/12/10 being in a party with a character who has 13/10/10/10/10/10 apart from GM fiat because I've met GMs who consider that okay when players roll.

Also, with regards to balance, if scores vary significantly it can be hard to keep inter-character balance and stop players from feeling useless. It's hard enough in entirely point buy games, but the luck of the dice can make it even worse.


•"It makes the party unbalanced"
I doubt it. If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup. And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.

Yeah, you're assuming a decent GM or the probable situation. There's also the fact that with some arrays, generally ones with no score better than +2, are hard to get to fill a niche.

Now, I'll happily roll as long as I can reroll in the case of getting a character without at least one 14+, or if I can fall back on the standard array. I actually like the Standard array, as it lets me feel like I'm going to be useful while puzzling out the 'do I want to place my middling stats here or there' that I get with rolling.


And here are reasons why rolls are good:
•D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?

Personal preference. In most other games it's possible to boost your chance on difficult tasks to >50%, which is hard in low-level D&D (my current character is the equivalent of about a 2nd/3rd level 5e character, but more competent at talking to people). Essentially, this is a very 'whatever floats your boat' point.


•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.

Eh, this is again a personal preference thing. My current group Munchkins, and so in our GURPS game everybody has 12+ IQ, but


• It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.

Nope. If you want to be in a party with a half-orc wizard, gnome barbarian and tiefling cleric with the standard array, the GM can... what was that thing you said?


It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party

The multiclassing point is more legitimate, but I think that's part of the intent of 5e, to be more reminiscent of the single-classed only early editions.


But honestly, people saying rolling is dumb isn't what irks me. It's because the threads that I have seen have been pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact. My table can do what we want, your table can do what you want. Bottom line is, this game is to have fun. It isn't competitive. Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.

Eh, this is the key thing. Your post reads a lot more like 'stop badwrongfun today' for at least the first half, when I think most people have been trying to say why they prefer point buy.

Not that on a board as optimisation-oriented as this one point buy is going to be more popular as people try to make the characters they want, not what the dice give them.

[wunderkid]

The gm definitely isn't to blame for imbalanced encounters. (well he can be but not inherently through stat rolls)

If you get one or two players who roll godly stats, and then the remaining average to below average, the scaling up the GM has to do to balance the encounters will make those players with worse stats feel even worse about those characters because despite them having worse base stats so they would miss more anyway, to have the gm up ac or difficulties making them miss even more, having monsters make their saves more often or taking more damage (compared to their max hp). While the good statted characters reap the glory. Yes 10% may not seem like a great deal but across every attack, action, save etc it really adds up.

In many games ive played in when a player rolls up bad stats their character becomes suicidal and derails the game. Simply to get a new character and therefore a chance at being the one at the table with the best stats.

In a nutshell rolling stats is great fun if you roll well (but then it's only fun at the expense of the rest of the group), or the whole group rolls evenly, But if that happens it's identical to point buy. And almost identical to standard array.

[Finieous]

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?


Can be. Going from 50% to hit to 60% to hit is a 20% increase in accuracy; 50% to 70% is a 40% increase in accuracy.



•"It makes the party unbalanced"


It can, sure. Part of the problem is the linear progression from -5 to +5. I have no problem rolling 3d6 in order in a B/X game, where modifiers range from -3 to +3 on a bell curve distribution.

In any case, it seems you aren't in favor of random stats anyway. You're in favor of rolling as long as the results are acceptable, however you and/or your DM defines that.



•D&D is random anyway


Do you roll randomly for what action your character takes in combat, as if you were under the effects of a confusion spell? Do you roll randomly for your race, background, class, subclass and alignment? Might be, randomness is good for adjudicating the outcome of uncertain actions a character takes, but not so good for creating the character or determining the actions he takes.



•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability


That's cool. See above for ideas about how you can introduce even more fun layers.



• It adds more opportunities for character creation


That's cool. See above for ideas about how to introduce even more out-of-the box characters.



Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.

Agreed.

[Knaight]

And here are reasons why rolls are good:
•D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?
Nowhere near all in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die, and the game specifically avoids having player decisions be made by the dice. On the game interaction side, consider the wide range of routine things characters do that don't involve any checks. There's most movement, there's social interaction with NPCs that isn't social conflict, etc. On the decision making side, note how there are no social skill mechanics that force PCs to do anything, notice how there's no non-magical way to affect how they are thinking. The only way to override this is with magic which directly overrides the characters choices. This is because D&D is designed so that the players chose who their characters are, and thus what they do. This also holds up in the mechanics, for the most part - ASIs/feats are picked, classes are picked, races are picked, class abilities are picked, etc.

It's easy to not pick up on this, because every edition of D&D has done this, as has essentially every RPG that is at all traditional. Breaking with that is a big shift - but it is one that happens. Torchbearer and Mouse Guard both have mechanics that straight up tell you that your character is now angry, or frightened, or sad, and that you should role play them accordingly. Fate has a social conflict mechanic where if you get in a social conflict and lose, you will generally have to do certain things depending on what concession you made. Shock: Social Science Fiction is pretty much about character shifts outside of the control of the player (or at least, outside of their entire control), and in their example of play has a scene where a PC religious leader loses their faith because of how the dice play out. Still, it's worth stressing that fundamental design principle of 5e, and how it doesn't pair particularly well with rolled stats.


•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.
:smallsigh:
The exact same incentives apply to race choice regardless, the exact same incentives apply to how attributes are ranked (the exact value of the 1st place stat may vary, where it goes, not so much), etc. Rolling and point buy don't affect this. What does affect this are three things.
1) The player's desire to optimize, as influenced by the book constantly insisting that every +1 really matters.
2) The deliberate design of 5e classes so that they don't care at all about half the attributes.
3) D&D's underlying design structure as being a game about a group of characters cooperating against external challenges and increasing in personal power.

It's really the second and third of these that warrant consideration, the first is more a matter of the extent to which D&D is played in accordance to its design structure or the extent to which the underlying design structure is used for something else. Were the second option different, then even in a game with the same underlying design structure you'd likely see more variety. Put in simpler terms, if charisma wasn't useless for a fighter, you might see more high charisma fighters. The third one is by far the biggest effect though, as with a different underlying design structure how the game gets designed by competent designers (and 5e has competent designers) is completely different. It's why in Smallville (a game about interpersonal relationships between characters) it's downright routine to have characters which are high powered superheroes right next to characters which are normal people. In a game about usually violent conflict with external entities, that dynamic turns into the superhero doing everything while the player playing the normal person gets progressively more bored.


• It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.
Again, you're not forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. I've seen enough people do otherwise (and for that matter, done otherwise) for that to be thoroughly unconvincing. You can play any of the things listed outside of rolling, and rolling might not actually give you that ability.

It's just that if you want to play a multiclass character, then you should spread your points around to multiple attributes. Yeah, you won't have a 16, but like you said, is 10-20% to hit really that much?

I could just leave that as a rhetorical question, but it's worth bringing up design fundamentals again, because whether 10-20$ to hit is really that much depends on the sort of game being played. If the game is an extended dungeon crawl that is mostly combat encounters, and which focuses more on how the PCs fight their foes than anything else, then yeah, it's a pretty big deal. If the game being played is one that is still being played to type (party of allies, external threat, etc.), then it still matters, but there's enough other stuff going on that it matters a lot less, particularly as there is likely a deemphasis on rolling in general, and a deemphasis on combat rolls in particular in favor of skills, where tertiary attributes and the like matter more (and where point buy scaling makes choosing not to go for a 16 produce a character who is downright better at this). If you're using the D&D rules for a character drama where the focus is taken away from how characters try to accomplish their goals and moved onto something like how the actions they take change who they are, then it probably doesn't matter much at all, and why are you using D&D for that in the first place?


But honestly, people saying rolling is dumb isn't what irks me. It's because the threads that I have seen have been pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact. My table can do what we want, your table can do what you want. Bottom line is, this game is to have fun. It isn't competitive. Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.
Outside of the Adventurer's League, which needs standardization because the core concept of it involves being able to keep one character while bouncing between games - and which is probably not all that relevant anyways to most people - nobody is making anybody do anything at their own tables. That influence just doesn't exist. What people are doing is providing information about the ramifications of different design choices so that people can make an informed choice on what to do at their table. I'd argue that there's a tendency to do so from a frustratingly narrow view based on detailed analysis of a handful of very similar games on this forum, but that doesn't reduce the value of looking at design, it just weakens big picture analysis while generally making the detail work pretty impressive.

Also, if you're going to talk about people pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact, starting with a list of things that point buy does which are completely inaccurate is maybe not the best move.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, here's the thing, in 5e Ability Scores have a large say in how capable you are at low levels. There's a big difference between having a 10 and a 14 in the Ability linked with a skill, and it's even bigger if you don't have proficiency. This subsides at higher levels as a character's proficiency bonus climbs, making a +1 worth less at level 10 than at level 1, but it still remains.You've got this backwards. The entirety of 5e design concept is that ability score and proficiency modifiers, while somewhat meaningful, are not critical to success nor overwhelm the variation of the random die roll. That's what bounded accuracy means. Bonuses are useful, but not critical, to your character's capability.

Edit: To be clear, I actually strongly prefer standard array over die rolls. But note that the designers made point buy the optional rule. The standard rule is a choice between rolling or standard array. That says a lot about their design intent.

[Jarlhen]

•"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?

•"It makes the party unbalanced"
I doubt it. If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup. And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.



So in all groups I've ever played with over the last 15+ years we've rolled. I've never used point buy. That said, these two points belong together. First off, 90% of the games I've played there's been 1 person with extremely good stats and 1 person with atrocious stats, 2 with bad, and 2 with what would be point buy stats. Roughly. I would argue it's a very high chance that at least one person in the group will be either extremely underpowered or overpowered when it comes to stats and comparing to the rest of the party. The moment the DM goes "well you can reroll because your stats are poor" then rolling for stats have lost it's point. What happens then is that the party can either become good or amazing. It's no longer random, it's just random within a very narrow frame, often so narrow there is 0 point in rolling for everyone except that one person who rolls extremely well.

And quite frankly, stats are a huge part of D&D. I realize there are people out there who are happy getting 12 as their highest stats, they just don't care. But to a lot of people, I'd argue the vast majority, stats matter a huge deal. And even if it mechanically doesn't matter it still matters to the person. Stats matter. Rolling is awesome for that one person who rolls 3 18's. Most of the party would win out on not rolling. Any argument where you diminish the importance of stats is a lost argument because you are wrong 7 times out of 10.

And to combine the two points you make here. It is the DMs role to balance the encounter, for sure. But there comes a point where the characters are so unbalanced within the party that creating a suitable encounter is a hair away from impossible. That's the DMs fault too for allowing the characters to be this unbalanced. And how do you sort this? You have them re-roll or you have them roll then give them points to distribute to get everyone up to the same basic level. So what was the point of rolling then? Just to give that one guy the chance to absurdly good stats?

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't want to roll stats because then I might fail the Wisdom check to breath :smalltongue:

EDIT:

You've got this backwards. The entirety of 5e design concept is that ability score and proficiency modifiers, while somewhat meaningful, are not critical to success nor overwhelm the variation of the random die roll. That's what bounded accuracy means. Bonuses are useful, but not critical, to your character's capability.

Edit: To be clear, I actually strongly prefer standard array over die rolls. But note that the designers made point buy the optional rule. The standard rule is a choice between rolling or standard array.

Eh... I wasn't taking the dice roll into account, I was talking about the proportional way to measure your bonus to rolls, where X% comes from your stat and Y% comes from your skills. I agree here, and it's actually one of the things that annoys me about 5e.

[smcmike]

I like rolled stats. I think they should be treated like a handicap in golf or bowling or sailing. If you roll terrible stats, the goal is to make a useful character in spite of them, and managing to do so can be a fun challenge. If you roll great stats, the goal can change to making a really interesting character that isn't wildly unbalanced compared to Mr. Lowstats. This is where the gnome barbarian comes in, or the dumb wizard, or the really handsome fighter.

[Pex]

How comforting to know I'm not alone.

I've mentioned it in other threads. Point Buy leads to cookie-cutter characters. You will not have dragonborn wizards or halfling barbarians because of it. The math of the game, with Point Buy, discourages such concepts. By obviousness they're not impossible to play, but they're far behind what they could have been with another class or race. Dice rolling does not guarantee viability of such characters either, but the possibility is enough. It doesn't matter that with the same rolled stats another class or race would have been "better"; it's enough a dragonborn wizard will be fine if fortunate enough to roll 16, 17, or 18 to put in IN.

[Belac93]

I personally like stat rolls. Although, I do often play high mortality or one shots, so it is usually pretty easy to change your character. Who cares if your character is a little underpowered? Have you ever seen a book, or other story, where everyone is just as powerful as each other?

If you wanted everything to be perfectly balanced, make everyone have point buy and the same character class. How are you certain that you can have a sorcerer and a fighter in the same party without one being better than the other?

[Zaq]

•"It makes the party unbalanced"
I doubt it. If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup. And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.

I've seen it happen more than once (in different campaigns with different GMs and different players). It may or may not be likely, but it's sure as hell possible, and when it does happen, it's really annoying. It's just not good game design to have a character that's fundamentally numerically weaker than your buddy's character through no fault of your own. This is especially true in a "bounded accuracy" system where you can't collect nickel-and-dime bonuses to make up a starting deficit. I mean, it was annoying in 3.5 to have a character with a stat deficit compared to the rest of the table, but at least 3.5 gave you the tools necessary to optimize with what you were given. 5e doesn't allow for that sort of thing. The system is really rigid, and it's designed with the expectation that everyone is supposed to be playable out of the box, but that means that if someone is starting below the curve, they don't have a chance to catch up, at least not until super late levels where everyone's stats are capping at 20 (and even then, the character who rolled higher will have had a chance to get feats that the character who rolled lower can't afford to buy).

I mean, sure, the GM can intervene and say "hmm, your stats are a lot lower than your friend's stats, so you can reroll them if you want." Maybe even keep letting the low-rolling player reroll until they get stats that aren't way worse than everyone else's. But that seems like a roundabout way of doing things compared to just, I dunno, not having the stats be random in the first place. And just as importantly, not every GM does that. In my experience (anecdotes are not data, but this is my experience), the GMs who choose to do rolled stats really love having random stats and don't want to let you just keep rolling. I've played under GMs who are happy when the characters have wildly different stat totals. (The PLAYERS weren't necessarily happy, of course, but my point is that you can't just rely on a GM to intervene and fix bad rolled stats.) Even if you have an arbitrary threshold for stat totals ("total modifier of +3 or higher," "must have at least one stat above 13," etc.) and anything below that can be rerolled, that doesn't mean that you'll be happy with what you got. Maybe you got only one decent stat and everything else is a 10 or a 12, but you're playing a Monk or a Paladin or someone else reliant upon multiple stats. Maybe you crossed the threshold but are still below even the standard array. Whatever. It happens. And it can be frustrating to be told you have to play a character who can't do what you want them to do just because some d6s don't like you on one set of rolls.

Yeah, it won't be a problem in every single game. But what about the games where it is a problem? Again, I've seen it happen in actual gameplay. Not theorycrafting, not what-if, but actual games with real people, and it was frustrating. The rules can't protect from every possible bad setup, but why embrace a set of rules that has nontrivial potential for bad setups baked right in?


And here are reasons why rolls are good:
•D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?

Because most single die rolls don't affect the entire rest of your character's life. We got rid of rolling for HP (or at least hard-coded in a sane alternative) for the exact same reason, and the system drastically cut back on the number of save-or-die effects compared to earlier editions. If you expect people to invest time and emotional energy in their characters, and those characters aren't supposed to be disposable things that just cycle in and out of the game like leaves fluttering in the breeze, then you generally don't want to have a single die roll permanently hamstringing that character, especially when that die roll has nothing to do with the player's choices. (I mean, I'm also of the opinion that the Deck of Many Things is bad for that sort of reason, but it's less bad than this, because at least the player chose to draw from the damn thing. While there are exceptions, players don't generally choose whether or not to roll stats; that's generally dictated by the GM.)

Rolling for stats isn't an "in-game interaction." It's a pre-game mechanic that determines a lot about how competent your character will be to start. I mean, you could theoretically roll for every single aspect of your character. Roll to pick a class each level. Roll for your race. Roll for your proficiencies. Roll for which spells you know. And if that's fun for you, then godspeed, but it doesn't sound fun to me for anything beyond a comical one-shot (though I agree that it would be fun for a silly slapstick one-shot). But no one is seriously arguing that just because playing the game involves dice then we should leave every aspect of our characters up to chance. If you wouldn't roll to choose your skills, why roll to choose your stats? We roll to determine how well we succeed at any individual thing we try to do; do we really need to let one roll determine that I'm always and forever going to be worse at social interactions than if that one roll had gone a little differently?


•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.

WotC just kind of generally screwed up stat generation in 5e, because I totally agree that the Standard Array is uninteresting, and I definitely like this point buy system less than 3.5's or 4e's PB systems. But the solution to WotC being weirdly timid with stat generation systems is not to say that Sally Diceloveme gets to play someone with great stats while Tommy Badluck has to play with a set of stats that doesn't let him do what he wants his character to do. The reason the existing Standard Array and PB allotment seem so similar is because all the stats you can generate with them are tightly clumped. If we're unhappy with that, that doesn't mean that we should just give some players high stats and some characters low stats. That means that we should make things more flexible in general.

And just because everyone has the same numbers to allocate, that doesn't mean that everyone's stats are the same. The Cleric is going to have higher WIS than the Rogue, who will have higher DEX than the Barbarian, who will have higher STR than the Warlock, pretty much no matter what method you use to generate stats. Their high stats may all be 15 or 16, but that doesn't mean every character has the same abilities. I mean, if all your players are playing with the same numbers in the same stats, then rolling is just going to change the specifics rather than the pattern. If everyone is playing with DEX > CON > WIS > CHA > STR > INT for some reason, then giving them random numbers to distribute will mean that Sally's DEX will be higher than Tommy's DEX, but it won't change the fact that Sally's DEX is higher than Sally's CON or the fact that Tommy's DEX is higher than Tommy's CON. (Unless you're suggesting rolling in order, 1e style, which I don't think you're doing.)


• It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.

That's only true if you roll really, really well. And that's my problem with a lot of the arguments in favor of rolling—they only end up being enjoyable if you roll a really great set of stats. If you want players to have the stats to multiclass, give them the stats to multiclass. Don't just say it's all up to chance. First, that seems disingenuous—it feels like what you really want is to allow players to have high stat arrays, but you don't want to admit it, so you say that it's all up to the dice and it's out of your hands. Second, it means that Sally Diceloveme can play the Smiting Rogue or Hexing Monk or whatever, but Tommy Badluck is struggling to even put together a half-orc Barbarian, let alone a half-orc Wizard or anything involving a multiclassing Monk. A player who rolls a great stat array can make unusual optimization choices, but a player who rolls poorly is starting at a disadvantage, so they're even more reliant upon the factors they can control (race and so on) to cobble together something that works.

A much better solution would be to just increase the damn point-buy allotment. Maybe even get rid of the "can't buy higher than 15" cap. If you want players to have the freedom to pick unusual combinations (multiclass options that the devs didn't want to go together, races that don't necessarily have the stats that match their chosen class, taking early feats instead of ASIs, etc.), then the easiest solution is just to give them the stats they need to allow that sort of thing. If you feel like the printed PB allotment discourages the style of play you like to see, then change that! Don't allow Sally Diceloveme to do things that Tommy Badluck can't do.

Anything I didn't quote from your original post isn't something I feel the need to argue against specifically. But I feel like you'd be happier just increasing the flexibility of PB or of the array. You won't need the GM to intervene to prevent party imbalance. You won't have to just hope that any individual player will have the ability to make nonstandard choices—you'll already know that they have the option if they choose to use it. You yourself said that an extra 10% accuracy isn't going to break bounded accuracy, so why not just give that to the players instead of maybe giving it to some of them but not to all of them?

I feel you about being unhappy with the given PB allotment or with the given standard array. But that doesn't mean that the easiest option is to hope that a single batch of die rolls solves all the problems. The easiest option is to just solve the problems.

[Tanarii]

IIt's just not good game design to have a character that's fundamentally numerically weaker than your buddy's character through no fault of your own.Which is why it's a common standard in the industry. Because they don't like designing good games.

Rolling is there for old-school wargame derived D&D players. Standard array is there for new-school video game derived D&D players. There is no good or not good in terms of game design for roll vs array in a team-oriented non-PvP roleplaying game. There is player preference based on what they are used to, and what their goals are.

[Finieous]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]
Rolling is there for old-school wargame derived D&D players. Standard array is there for new-school video game derived D&D players. There is no good or not good in terms of game design for roll vs array in a team-oriented non-PvP roleplaying game.

That's silly. I've been playing since 1980 and I prefer point-buy or standard array for 5e. For me, my preference depends on the game -- or the edition, in this case -- based on how it's designed.

[Knaight]

Rolling is there for old-school wargame derived D&D players. Standard array is there for new-school video game derived D&D players. There is no good or not good in terms of game design for roll vs array in a team-oriented non-PvP roleplaying game. There is player preference based on what they are used to, and what their goals are.

Uh-huh. So, if these nonrandom arrays are for "new-school video game derived D&D players", why is there nonrandom attribute generation in GURPS, written in 1986, without a trace of video game influence and before there was really any chance for video game derived players to show up.

[Tanarii]

That's silly. I've been playing since 1980 and I prefer point-buy or standard array for 5e. For me, my preference depends on the game -- or the edition, in this case -- based on how it's designed.Same here. But that's why they have the two features. For old style play or to mimic newer style of play. (I definitely should have said "play" not "players".)

I was commenting on the "bad game design" for including rolling for ability scores. That's not true at all.


Uh-huh. So, if these nonrandom arrays are for "new-school video game derived D&D players", why is there nonrandom attribute generation in GURPS, written in 1986, without a trace of video game influence and before there was really any chance for video game derived players to show up.
Clearly GURPS is just better game design

Edit: Fair point on it not being particularly new school or video gamey. I was being overly combative & defensive about being called out.

[Finieous]

Same here. But that's why they have the two features. For old style play or to mimic newer style of play. (I definitely should have said "play" not "players".)


That's fair, and I do think the way the game is played is important in this, not just the design. But the design also matters. Like I said, I think random ability rolls worked better in B/X with a nonlinear progression from -3 to +3, and it ALSO worked better for a game that was designed and played as a high-mortality fantasy exploration and survival. By contrast, 5e is designed for low-mortality heroic fantasy and I think that's a bad fit for random rolls.

[Tanarii]

and it ALSO worked better for a game that was designed and played as a high-mortality fantasy exploration and survival. By contrast, 5e is designed for low-mortality heroic fantasy and I think that's a bad fit for random rolls.I disagree. 5e was explicitly designed to appeal to 1e & 2e AD&D players, as well as 3e players and 4e players. The designers made that clear, especially Mike Mearls. In other words, it's designed to allow either of those style of play. They clearly and very intentionally brought in lots of elements to mimic pre-3e high-mortality fantasy exploration and survival. Rolling for attributes is one of those things, which is why it's one of the two default rules for attribute generation during character creation.

[Finieous]

I disagree. 5e was explicitly designed to appeal to 1e & 2e AD&D players, as well as 3e players and 4e players.

Yes, the shift to heroic fantasy was already well underway with AD&D. In terms of design, and ability scores in particular, this shift was reflected in expanded options to ensure that "randomly rolled" characters would be "heroic," culminating with UA's hybrid dice-allocation method. The most common house rules at the time were meant to deal with mortality.

So I think we agree that 1e through 5e have been designed with heroic fantasy in mind. The history of their design evolution point to the tension between this mode of play and random ability scores.

ETA: When I said, "...culminating with UA's hybrid dice-allocation method," I was obviously referring to 1e. 2e went even further toward full-on point-buy.

[N810]

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/34300000/-Clint-as-Dirty-Harry-Callahan-clint-eastwood-34346918-200-200.jpg

[Tanarii]

The most common house rules at the time were meant to deal with mortality.Because the game wasn't designed to be played with low mortality, so you had to create house-rules to play that way. Even UA was alternate rules to play in ways not original designed to be played. oD&D & later 1e was very intentionally designed to be extremely high mortality unless you showed (a never fully quantified) "player skill". (In quotes because I don't think not dying is the only way to be a skilled player, or high lethality is the only way to allow the game to be played a skilled way.)

It's fun to play games that way sometimes still. I'm running one right now. But I totally grant that it's not a particularly common style of play any more. They still incorporated many older elements that allow it to be played closer to the older way, if desired. D&D is still designed to be a game of dungeon, wilderness and urban adventures with combat, exploration & social interaction, with character development primarily occurring as a result of play. The lethality had been toned back a fair amount, and the pre-character background development expanded (primarily through the personality rules).

But there doesn't have to be any assumption that you won't die. Or that (for example) the party is the party and will remain the party, all equal(ish) level and surviving, for the entirety of the campaign. (Which is a common assumption for modern play. Whether or not that counts as heroic fantasy I can't say.)

[Talamare]

Against

It creates unfun/fair between the players on the table, everyone wants to be a hero. For a lot of people its less fun being significantly weaker than the next guy, and potentially a lot less useful.

You rolled low? Now you need to beg the DM for a pity reroll?

You're meant to start weak, the idea of idk... 95% of GOOD STORIES, is about going from Zero to Hero.

[Cybren]

Uh-huh. So, if these nonrandom arrays are for "new-school video game derived D&D players", why is there nonrandom attribute generation in GURPS, written in 1986, without a trace of video game influence and before there was really any chance for video game derived players to show up.

Because GURPS is GURPS and D&D is D&D.

I love GURPS, it's one of my favorite RPGs, but when I play D&D i vastly prefer rolled stats. I think most of the criticisms of using rolled stats in 5E are very very very much overstated. Certainly there's potential for imbalances, but that's not necessarily a weakness. I tend to take the philosophy that 'balance' is an illusion. After all, some campaigns may see party members of disparate level, something the game can also handle without breaking.

[Elbeyon]

It all comes down to personal taste. If I was in a game that allowed both I would take my favored option even if it ended up with my character being below the party's average.

[Bubzors]

I'm personally an advocate for rolling stats. I will never point buy. However, among the group I play with we offer the choice of rolling or point buy. Everyone picks rolling. Again just ones personal opinion and experience, but everyone is fine with it and hasn't lead to any unbalancing or unfairness others seem to think it does.

One thing we do implement is that if your total ability bonus (all +'s and -'s from stats added up) isn't positive you can use point buy instead. For example, a 8, 8, 10, 11, 12, 12 would be a no go since the total bonus is 0. It's no fun having 11 or less in almost every stat. So I can see if you fear this type of outcome without protection from it how you can hate rolling.

[Thrudd]

In a game where the ability scores dictate so much of gameplay, rolling doesn't make a lot of sense.

In early D&D, they determined far less, your class and level far more. The effectiveness of spells and your saves had no connection to abilities. There were no skills, except for thieves. Bonuses to AC and attacks were lower (unless you got really lucky and into the percentile strength for fighters in AD&D). It was important to have a high-ish score in the main ability of your class, which is probably how you determined what class to choose. For 5e, cut the bonuses provided by the scores in half, and rolling would make more sense.

[MaxWilson]

One excellent reason to allow rolling is this:

It's part of the game that the players signed up to play. You shouldn't remove parts of the game unnecessarily.

I allow players to roll or point buy, as they wish. Maximizing player choice is what good D&D is all about.


In a game where the ability scores dictate so much of gameplay, rolling doesn't make a lot of sense.

In early D&D, they determined far less, your class and level far more. The effectiveness of spells and your saves had no connection to abilities. There were no skills, except for thieves. Bonuses to AC and attacks were lower (unless you got really lucky and into the percentile strength for fighters in AD&D). It was important to have a high-ish score in the main ability of your class, which is probably how you determined what class to choose. For 5e, cut the bonuses provided by the scores in half, and rolling would make more sense.

Isn't this an argument that rolling in 5E is less imbalancing than in AD&D, not more? Theorycrafting in AD&D was, "First, manage to roll 18/00 strength. Then, be a Fighter with specialization in darts, and then dual-class to Wild Mage at 13th level." The vast majority of theorycrafted builds were impossible most of the time. In contrast, in 5E, 50-70% of viable builds work just fine with both rolling and point buy, and 30% or so of them work even if you roll poorly.

TLDR; rolling stats works really well in 5E because you still have a wide range of choices no matter what your rolls.

[Tanarii]

One thing we do implement is that if your total ability bonus (all +'s and -'s from stats added up) isn't positive you can use point buy instead. For example, a 8, 8, 10, 11, 12, 12 would be a no go since the total bonus is 0. It's no fun having 11 or less in almost every stat. So I can see if you fear this type of outcome without protection from it how you can hate rolling.Your protection against that is rolling 4d6b3. The odds of getting 11 or less in every stat is very small. 0.3% or 3 in 1000 characters generated.

Edit: I'd have to go through and run the numbers for +1 or greater total mod. I'm not sure if it's significantly higher or not.

[wunderkid]

Given how many people have rolled 3 18s recently I'd say that's a pretty scary prospect

[MaxWilson]

Your protection against that is rolling 4d6b3. The odds of getting 11 or less in every stat is very small. 0.3% or 3 in 1000 characters generated.

Edit: I'd have to go through and run the numbers for +1 or greater total mod. I'm not sure if it's significantly higher or not.

It can't be that low, because I've rolled and/or played PCs with all stats under 12 several times. They usually wind up as Moon Druids, Fighters, Sorlocks, or Rogues.

IMO, your real protection against that is playing in a campaign with more than one PC per player. Occasionally playing a Moon Druid with all stats under 11 is fun. Always playing a Moon Druid with all stats under 11, every week for four hours for eight years (as some people seem to do), is not so fun.

But then, I think the same thing would be true for a PC with all stats at 18, as well. Having multiple characters per player just makes D&D better in so many ways. It's also more traditional.

[Tanarii]

It can't be that low, because I've rolled and/or played PCs with all stats under 12 several times. They usually wind up as Moon Druids, Fighters, Sorlocks, or Rogues.Basic binomial function. 38% chance of an 11 or lower, pick 6 of 6. Odds of all six being within that 38% are 0.3%. edit: If I'm doing it wrong, please show me where. I'm not a statistics wizard. Eager to learn. :)

Edit:

Given how many people have rolled 3 18s recently I'd say that's a pretty scary prospectMissed this. Yeah, the odds of that are less than 0.01%, or less than one in 10,000. If you see someone with three 18s, try not to laugh at their obviousness.

[DaKiwiMonsta]

I am an advocate for rolling stats because of these reasons:

• I find that 4d6b3 is a great way to introduce new players to D&D as it allows them to have some higher stats and enjoy the game without having to worry about alternatives to combat and social interactions. Another control I introduce is that I roll stats for all players in a new campaign as not only do I roll quite well with my d6, but it means that stats are not influenced by terribly unlucky newcomers (this may put them off).

• For more experienced players, I like to reduce the rolls to 3d6 to add to the randomness of character creation. I find that this helps encourage creativity among my players and allows for more in-depth characters which is always a nice thing in D&D. In the case of much more hardcore players, I dictate that the stats must be rolled in order, as this really pushes them to be imaginative.

• I find that 27 and point-buy limit creativity by encouraging optimisation and ultimately leads to feat-dependence. I find that this occurs because players already have their primary stats covered with the highest allocation of points, so look for alternatives to improve their character.

• Stat array might as well be the KO punch for creativity, as it really feels like some kind of robot army that we are creating that can only be good at one thing and mediocre at everything else. While rolling can create really unbalanced characters, I'd rather have a fighter with 5 strength and 18 wisdom than a convenient character.

Because let's be honest, a character that you know can definitely be good at the stuff you want, and bad at the things you don't need, is just a convenience.

[Gtdead]

The funny thing in all these discussions is that those that advocate for rolling stats assume that the moment you select to use pointbuy, you optimize for combat. Well, that's wrong. Optimization is a choice, there is nothing preventing you from making the ultimate jack of all trades or play the dumb/frail/whatever guy. In fact you can even randomize with pointbuy. Just create an array, randomize it with a d6 and save yourself from having to decide where to put that 4 you rolled.



• It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.


First you assume that rolling for stats with give you better results overall. This may happen (although usually what happens is having 18 main stat and 4 INT) but there is NOTHING you can do with rolling that you can't do with point buy. It won't be very optimized, but you can do it nevertheless. Sure, once in a blue moon someone will roll an amazing body for a bard/wizard/druid multiclass or whatever but really.. you can just go 15/13/13/13/13/13 with point buy and human and do every multiclass possible. For someone that claims that 20% difference isn't that big of a deal (which is flat out wrong), you can agree that I just created the perfect character. ^^

But while rolling better stats than point buy is a possibility, so is rolling ****ty stats. And then you come to forums for help and understand that your only option is a moon druid.



•"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?


Not understanding how 10-20% hit, ac or saves affect the game and then saying that balance is up to DM makes this argument weak. The higher the stat, the better it scales, and then there are other things to consider like advantage, party composition etc.

Consider that without class features and stat score of 10, you have about 50% chance to hit even the weakest common enemies for your level (thanks to proficiency scaling). +4 to hit is 20% difference, which increases dpr by 40%. And that's not taking into account other optimization shenanigans and the effect of attacking with advantage. Trust me, that 20% hit translates to a HUGE bonus.

It makes the DM work way harder than he needs to. We are not really talking about experienced gamers, do we? If an experienced DM tells you to roll the stats, then he finds this method desirable and knows what can happen. A new DM will take a long time till he figures it out though because he has to do all the work by himself.

Now if combat is a small and avoidable part of your game, rolling for stats may be a better idea. I wouldn't know cause I've never played such games and I will never do.

This whole argument is a question of rolling a random character or creating a concept. You can't create a concept by randomizing everything. You can only take this random body and add features to it. Which is good if that's what you want to do and get out of your comfort zone, but if that's not your thing, then rolling is a weak method. And the reason is that (as you pointed out), rolling can go wrong and then you need to negotiate rerolls. Pointbuy can't go wrong, ever.

[Tanarii]

For those who are interested, the average 4d6b3 total bonus is approximately +5. Counting (for example) a split at 11-12 as +0.5 bonus.

Based on Anydice: http://anydice.com/program/2483

Also note that each set falls within approximately a 6 range span. In other words, your expected array (roughly 90% chance within each set) is:
Attribute #1: 13-18
Attribute #2: 12-16
Attribute #3: 11-15
Attribute #4: 10-14
Attribute #5: 8-13
Attribute #6: 6-11

Do note that a 90% within each set only works out to a 53% chance that your entire array will fit within this range. So there's a decent chance for any given array that there will be outliers.

[BurgerBeast]

4d6b3 is almost the same as the standard array, with 4d6b3 coming out 1 point of +/- ahead because you usually get a 16 instead of a 15 for the highest score (and usually a 9 instead of an 8, but this doesn't improve the bonus/penalty).

This is the opposite of what they did with hit points, where the nonrandom method is favourable. So mathematically, it makes the most sense to roll hit abilities and take standard hit points (i.e. don't roll them).

But even if you are worried about game-breaking results (I'm not), you can take the standard array +/- as a starting point and work form there.

Point buy usually results in a total bonus of +5. So if you want to limit the effects of rolling, set total modifier limits. Use any of:

min +4 max +6
min +3 max +7
min +2 max +8
min +1 max +9
...

all the way down no limit either way.

Use whichever suits your tastes for random effects that carry throughout the entire campaign.

[Tanarii]

This is the opposite of what they did with hit points, where the nonrandom method is favourable. So mathematically, it makes the most sense to roll hit abilities and take standard hit points (i.e. don't roll them).Unless you have a Con penalty. Then it might be worth rolling Hit Points.

[oxybe]

"5E isn't meant for rolled stats"
Oh I'm sorry, random person on the internet, it was silly of me to not realize that you know absolutely everything about the game's creation and what was and wasn't meant to be used. Oh wait-you don't.

This argument is honestly the dumbest one I have seen. How, exactly, do you know this? Maybe you had one experience in which rolled stats led to a bad thing happening, but that doesn't mean that it should just never be used. Even the book lists it as the default.

with the impact that stat variances can actually have (which i go into later!), yes, i would say that the game isn't really meant for rolled stats, or at least with the provision that the game isn't meant for rolled stats outside of a given boundry. outliers, those that exist outside that boundry can cause issues to the game balance.


"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.

And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?

i hate this line of reasoning. as though the game is somehow infallible because there is a man behind the screen? what if the gm is new and doesn't understand how to tweak the game. that he wasn't fathered in by a more experienced group and told "whelp, the game doesn't actually work as written when you have stat disparities so you'll have to get your hands dirty, here's how".

don't blame a newbie when they're given no guidance by the game on how much or little to tweak it.

if you have to do extra legwork because the game's not working right, that's proof enough that the game's not working: if you build an enounter based on the encounter building rules that the game provides and it's unbalanced (in either direction) then the game doesn't work as written within the possible bounds the devs wrote in. like... i don't know how more obvious we can make this.

and yes, a 10-20% to hit is really that much. see later where i throw math around like a heavy flail.


"It makes the party unbalanced"
I doubt it. If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup. And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.

re-rolling rolled stats seems to be entirely counter-intuitive or even dishonest to the concept of rolling stats: if you want characters within a certain power frame, you should either create a rolling process that generates consistent characters within that band or let the players just point buy.

depending on the feature it may turn your character into a one-trick pony though. if the only thing you're good for is being a walking bandaid with a bunch of mediocre stats, and a rogue needs a decent dex to do a lot of the stealthing and setting up that's expected of the class and a fighter without a good str or dex won't be able to make much use of his combat abilities.

oddly enough, the casters are actually some of the few classes that can work even with little to nothing in their primary ability scores, as long as you don't use spells that require attack rolls or saving throws for no effect.

again, i'll go into details on how much a variance can mean and how at lower levels, which I can safely assume is the most played levels, this variance is actually where the discrepancy hits the hardest.


•D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?

No. D&D is about adventurers going out and adventuring. If I cared that deeply about the luck of the dice then I'd go gambling, not hunting down goblins. randomness by itself is neither a motivator to go adventuring or a good plot point by itself.

randomness should be used in situations where uncertainty is present to simulate unknowns and create, or at least create the illusion, of tension.

You don't let luck choose you class or race in 5th, nor do you let randomness decide on how your character will act in any particular situation. I see no reason to let luck decide something as vital to my character's survival and ability to do their job as their base stats, something that has a far more reaching impact on how the character plays then any given attack roll they make, then I would let randomness decide on if my character will use courtesy and etiquette when dealing with people or if they're going to poop in their soup and praise Myrkul.


•It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.

•It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.

refutation: it doesn't. characterization is what makes characters interesting. how a character interacts with people, stress and wide gamut of situations is what makes a character interesting.

not if their dex was chosen from a preset list of numbers, generated from a pool of points or rolled.

I also find your Oathbreaker clergyman as an example of a rolled character kinda funny. mine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477452-Oaths-for-an-Oathbreaker-of-Myrkul) wasn't rolled (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=706908). point bought. every single bit. doubly so as he's a multiclass paladin/wizard, two classes that would be considered a "crazy combination" as they share about as much in common as bread and marble.

now, rolling isn't going to necessarily give you the option to play the gnome barbarian or half-orc wizard. with point buy you can often make concessions in some stats and work around something if you're really dead set on a given concept, but with rolling your options are whatever the dice decide to give you. if that's a bunch of 12-9's with a single 14, then there you have it. you're not assured anything...that's the point of randomness, so please don't make it seem as anything but such.

as for optimization vs flavour, that is a bold faced lie. optimization is done because you have a concept. you cannot have optimization without a goal and that goal will be guiding your choices. if that goal is to make the greatest swordsman ever, a character who focuses all their time to their study of the blade, that is just as valid a concept as your character.

it irritates me to see people somehow see randomization as somehow equal to characterization it isn't. it's just randomization. This is where my personal corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy: Tao of the Oxybe, where full understanding that mechanics and characterization are the Ying and Yang of PCs, both separate yet at the same time influencing each other to create a balanced and interesting whole.

a good character is one that uses both mechanics and fluff to show not just the personality of the character but also how they interact with the gameworld and doggedly relying on randomization as your core determinant for how you characterize your PC is more an indicator of no clear goal, concept or idea for this nebulous character.

now... real talk on numbers and how much a 3 point difference can actually mean.

if we're gonna look at how stats affect a character in combat, comparing one with 10 str vs one with a 17 str using a d8 weapon vs an enemy with AC 13 will not just have a 50%hit for 2.25 damage per round VS 65%hit for for 4.875 damage per round. that's a 216% increase in average damage per round from raw ability score alone.

even using a 2d6 weapon we're still looking a 3.5 average vs 6.5 average, an 185% increase in damage.and this is from a 3pt gap between two characters at level 1.

now, at later levels, let's say 8, these two characters, using their 2d6 weapon and assuming raw stat boosts all going to str we have a 14 str & 20 str character with a +4 prof bonus each so 6/9 for a 65% 5.85 and 80% 9.6 for a 164% damage increase.

even though the game doesn't harshly rely on scores as the primary source for your task resolution, it's still a rather important factor.

note that our 10str guy will be spending at least 5 of his stat boosts on raw upgrades if he's looking to stay at 17str guy's level and only at around 12 (earlier if he's a fighter) will the gap start closing quicker.

note that there are ways to mitigate some of these issues or lessen them: advantage, damage modifiers (like sneak attack, rage, paladin smites, etc..) and whatnot, but those are generally as potentially available to one character as they are to another character.

long story short: stats matter.

does that mean i'm 100% against random generation? not entirely. if given the option between random and point buy, i can't see myself choosing the former over the latter but that's preference. but conceptually? i have no problem with random generation.

i just hate how D&D does random generation.

[Sigreid]

Edit:
Missed this. Yeah, the odds of that are less than 0.01%, or less than one in 10,000. If you see someone with three 18s, try not to laugh at their obviousness.

Bit harsh. Anything that can happen is going to eventually and anything that has happened once can happen again. Now if you have a player that always has the highest stats, you might want to make him roll with your dice or check if his are loaded. :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

Why is it ok to play a human wizard with 16 intelligence but not ok to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 intelligence? 5E Point Buy forbids the dragonborn. When Point Buy is telling me I can't play a particular character Point Buy can go take a hike. Dice rolling does not guarantee me the dragonborn but allows for the possibility.

[silverkyo]

Personally, I'm a fan of dice rolling, but only because I remove some variance. I like to use 4d6b3, but if all the individual stats don't add up to at least a 70, they can re-roll. This gives the baseline of all stats evening out to 12, which is just +1 over average, although it never adds up that way. Now I know some stat rollers look at that with horror, and others will say "why not just point buy and cut out the rolling entirely?". I have a couple reasons for adopting this system:

1.) The main pain with stat rolling, one I've experienced myself, is the crazy high variance between characters with the God characters and the Garbage Cans With Legs. That doesn't create a fun game, regardless of what anyone tells you otherwise. So all I did was raise the lower end baseline and lowered the variance a bit.

2.) The issue with point buy and stat arrays that I've found is that all players shoot for crazy optimization and that all the characters kind of balance out, which I simply found to be a little dull. No two people are equal, some people are better at some things then others, and stats felt much more limited with point buys and arrays in terms of player options. The numbers always come out the same.

3.) While variance is lowered, it isn't removed entirely. I have one player who ended up rolling a 6. I didn't think the numbers would pull through, but he ended up with 2 really high stats and 2 solid stats and 1 average, so he still went over the 70 minimum. He actually decided to put it in Dex because eh wanted to be a clumsy guy and it created interesting RP when he had to cross 10 fit gap over a river on a plank of wood. We still get players who end up with a lower stat that they usually have to live with.

4.) I like feats. Giving players the option to take fun feats or even some flavor feats over simple stat bumps create a lot more fun for the game. ASI increases are not an interesting choice, it's a numeric bump that is almost always statistically more useful. Feats give more tools, more options, and more flavor. I like higher stat "hero" characters, it suits my settings. I've never had an issue with homebrew and scaling combat encounters once I get a feel for party power and how they like to fight as a group. Having higher base stats allows for characters like out half-orc wizard, dwarf monk, and gnome druid, things that are usually not common choices when players are really desperate for stat points. I had one player go basic human and he has almost bonkers stats, but he always bites it by being the one player that doesn't have dark vision and constantly needing torches to see and having issues being stealthy. It suits his character, but it still makes for a meaningful gameplay choice and how the party groups or scouts.

5.) I also run quite a bit of mystery and intrigue and social encounters, where the stats don't matter as much compared to skills and player choices. Making fun character moments isn't really tied to stats. I like to have a stronger story and RP element that can't be changed with numbers.

6.) While there is all that math above me which is great and all, but a 5-10% chance to hit.... actually does not mean much. It really doesn't. 5e is really dependent on the d20 to hit more then most systems where the attack bonuses between characters can vary so wildly, such as a TWF rogue vs GWF fighter in Pathfinder. The highest chance to hit difference I've ever seen between players is 15% with my system, usually closer to 10%. Chance to hit is more determined by how lucky the dice rolls are more then numbers. If you do play in a party that has a bigger variance then that with chance to hit, then your issue is you're blending genres. You have one "hero fantasy" character and one "gritty realism" character in the same group, and the feels of those characters and games are going to be incredibly different. Mixing character types like that is always going to cause friction.

[EvilestWeevil]

I rolled amazing stats for my wizard, it didn't stop him from becoming unconscious to a swarm of snakes at 7th level. Stats are really not everything, and if you haven't noticed most of the adventures they have been throwing out either put you against nearly impossible odds (Tiamat, if you are unlucky), or you know frickin elemental princes, demonlords, and emo vampires. Stats are only a part of the math, and the math should be secondary. Its all about the rule of cool, roleplaying and having the chance to hang out with friends. You can fix any of the math, items can fix things, so sure my character has amazing stats, and yours doesn't. Then the DM evens things out by directing specific treasure toward your character and as long as I am not a greedy ass, all of a sudden we are effectively even.

[Anonymouswizard]

One excellent reason to allow rolling is this:

It's part of the game that the players signed up to play. You shouldn't remove parts of the game unnecessarily.

I allow players to roll or point buy, as they wish. Maximizing player choice is what good D&D is all about.

Really? Most of the time people signed up to bash orcs over the head and nick their stuff, and the standard array allows them to get to the stuff stealing faster. When they don't sign up for that they generally do not care about the stat generation method.


Given how many people have rolled 3 18s recently I'd say that's a pretty scary prospect

This is why you should have someone eyeball all rolls. I actually try to get the GM to do it when possible, so they know I'm being legitimate. I mean look at these stats I got last night: 18, 18, 18, 17, 14, 3. It only took me 2 hours!


• I find that 4d6b3 is a great way to introduce new players to D&D as it allows them to have some higher stats and enjoy the game without having to worry about alternatives to combat and social interactions. Another control I introduce is that I roll stats for all players in a new campaign as not only do I roll quite well with my d6, but it means that stats are not influenced by terribly unlucky newcomers (this may put them off).

You hear it here first folks, rolling stats objectively makes you enjoy the game more!

Man, my Unknown Armies game must have sucked, so sad I didn't notice it.


• For more experienced players, I like to reduce the rolls to 3d6 to add to the randomness of character creation. I find that this helps encourage creativity among my players and allows for more in-depth characters which is always a nice thing in D&D. In the case of much more hardcore players, I dictate that the stats must be rolled in order, as this really pushes them to be imaginative.

How? How is 'oh, I roll only one high stat, caster time' or 'oh look, 16 strength, better be a fighter' more imaginative than 'I want to play an archivist, so I'm putting a 15 in Intelligence and 14 in Wisdom and going for a wizard/cleric multiclass' or 'Rawblargh, a veteran of many wars, is a half-orc fighter/rogue with 16 Strength, 16 Constitution, and 14 Dexterity who wears medium armour and fights with a warhammer'? This just does not logically follow.


• I find that 27 and point-buy limit creativity by encouraging optimisation and ultimately leads to feat-dependence. I find that this occurs because players already have their primary stats covered with the highest allocation of points, so look for alternatives to improve their character.

How? Why is it a sin to want a character who can fulfil their concept? If you have a problem with feat dependence, just don't play with feats.


• Stat array might as well be the KO punch for creativity, as it really feels like some kind of robot army that we are creating that can only be good at one thing and mediocre at everything else. While rolling can create really unbalanced characters, I'd rather have a fighter with 5 strength and 18 wisdom than a convenient character.

Which is also what generally happens with rolled stats. Why does point buy stop me from having a fighter with 8 Strength and 16 Wisdom?


Because let's be honest, a character that you know can definitely be good at the stuff you want, and bad at the things you don't need, is just a convenience.

Also known as 'fulfilling the character concept I intend to play'. Do you also randomise race, class, background, and equipment, just to make sure your character is less convenient?


Why is it ok to play a human wizard with 16 intelligence but not ok to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 intelligence? 5E Point Buy forbids the dragonborn. When Point Buy is telling me I can't play a particular character Point Buy can go take a hike. Dice rolling does not guarantee me the dragonborn but allows for the possibility.

Eh, generally nothing. If people in other games want to roll stats because they think it leads to more interesting and varied characters feel free. I'm happy to adjust encounters slightly for the dragonborn slightly less good because he's a wizard and not a Paladin.

[Discord]

I've always liked to use Standard Array, only because when I've used rolled stats in 5e, there's always that one person who outshines the rest or sucks.

Example: I played through LMOP lately, I wanted to make a Bladesinger Wizard... however the stats I rolled, 8, 10, 10, 16, 10, 10

Which yes, let me have a 16 in my Intelligence, but it extremely limited me being a Bladesinger since they also need a high dex, I ended up going a completely different school of magic due to rolled stats.

[NewDM]

I've always liked to use Standard Array, only because when I've used rolled stats in 5e, there's always that one person who outshines the rest or sucks.

Example: I played through LMOP lately, I wanted to make a Bladesinger Wizard... however the stats I rolled, 8, 10, 10, 16, 10, 10

Which yes, let me have a 16 in my Intelligence, but it extremely limited me being a Bladesinger since they also need a high dex, I ended up going a completely different school of magic due to rolled stats.

I do this too. Point buy or array keeps you in line with the other characters. In my many years of playing, I've seen people roll all 18's and all 3's.

[OldTrees1]

Why is it ok to play a human wizard with 16 intelligence but not ok to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 intelligence? 5E Point Buy forbids the dragonborn. When Point Buy is telling me I can't play a particular character Point Buy can go take a hike. Dice rolling does not guarantee me the dragonborn but allows for the possibility.

Another valid argument. Just like dice rolls can be less apt for a specific character, so too can point buy be less apt(in this case the default point buy is unable to create the character).

One could consider expanding the point buy based on the established pattern. However doing so unlocks 1st level 18s.

So even after looking at a decent rebuttal attempt, your argument for stat rolls sometimes being the right method is still valid.

[Citan]

So in all groups I've ever played with over the last 15+ years we've rolled. I've never used point buy. That said, these two points belong together. First off, 90% of the games I've played there's been 1 person with extremely good stats and 1 person with atrocious stats, 2 with bad, and 2 with what would be point buy stats. Roughly. I would argue it's a very high chance that at least one person in the group will be either extremely underpowered or overpowered when it comes to stats and comparing to the rest of the party. The moment the DM goes "well you can reroll because your stats are poor" then rolling for stats have lost it's point. What happens then is that the party can either become good or amazing. It's no longer random, it's just random within a very narrow frame, often so narrow there is 0 point in rolling for everyone except that one person who rolls extremely well.

Agreed with this. Note though that there IS another way to circumvene very bad rolls that could be, imo, good enough for the unlucky player to have fun without voiding the principle of rolling stats.
Instead of rerolling, design with him a set of conditions (a specific place, being enraged or utterly frightened, facing identified enemies etc) that, when met, allow him to bring out unsuspected abilities (= great increase in one or other stat).
This will give the player an interesting goal to follow or at least a way to have his moments, and an easier way for you to create situations where he can be "the best" in spite of poor stats.
A more bland way to get around would simply to hint him towards an exceptional quest that would reward him with "stat-bumping books" (don't remember the names) in the first levels.


How comforting to know I'm not alone.

I've mentioned it in other threads. Point Buy leads to cookie-cutter characters. You will not have dragonborn wizards or halfling barbarians because of it. The math of the game, with Point Buy, discourages such concepts. By obviousness they're not impossible to play, but they're far behind what they could have been with another class or race. Dice rolling does not guarantee viability of such characters either, but the possibility is enough. It doesn't matter that with the same rolled stats another class or race would have been "better"; it's enough a dragonborn wizard will be fine if fortunate enough to roll 16, 17, or 18 to put in IN.
You're basically only talking about the case where people roll very good stats.
Because otherwise (aka "you don't care about good stats"), heavily multiclass builds are already doable (one of the cases where Human is one of the best choices ;)).

A very simple way to allow everything you're talking about (original multiclass builds, great people) without the drawbacks of rolls (risk of excessive discrepancy between players) NOR the drawbacks of classic point-buy ("everyone is the same", although I don't agree) is to just remove the "15-cap" on point-buy method and give a hefty amount of points, like 40.
Plain enough, perfectly fair for all players, and good for every build (you want a Wiz/Pal/Monk? check. You want a godly Barbarian? check).

While I'm on this topic by the way...

I find that 27 and point-buy limit creativity by encouraging optimisation and ultimately leads to feat-dependence. I find that this occurs because players already have their primary stats covered with the highest allocation of points, so look for alternatives to improve their character.
I'd actually daresay that they fixed this amount and this 15 cap precisely because "normal" games aren't supposed to be played with feats. Feats are AN OPTION, that the DM may or may not allow.
And without Feats, most classes have at least 5 ASI to spend on 2*(+1) or +2 in a given stat, which should be largely enough for most to max their important stat (or bump a stat high enough to multiclass). If you allow multiclass and feats though, that may be a bit short. That's why I allowed 30 points to give a bit more room to the players to grab a feat later in my game.

EDIT: actually, I think that this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20576559&postcount=17) nails the counter-arguments pretty well, agree 100% with it (I've been burned ^^).

EDIT 2 (yeah, I'm late ^^): I have to thank Silverkyo for his post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20578853&postcount=45) though. It's actually the first post that puts constructive arguments in favor of rolling, although he also made his own variant to avoid the pain of bad stats (so it's not the plan D&d roll).

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed with this. Note though that there IS another way to circumvene very bad rolls that could be, imo, good enough for the unlucky player to have fun without voiding the principle of rolling stats.
This player is seeking advice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482394-Whelp-it-was-bound-to-happen-sometime)on poor rolls and then a GM twist.

[Morty]

Can someone explain how, exactly, a GM is supposed to "adjust" the game for unequal rolls between players? Throw some weaker challenges and make them target the unlucky player? Whatever that may be, it really sounds like time and effort better spend on, you know, running the game. Which is enough work without having to patch up holes in the rules.

Randomness is a key element of many RPGs, D&D included. But it belongs on the table, during the game. Character generation has to be predictable. If point-buy discourages some concepts, that's the fault of the system, and fixing that by rolling for attributes is like trying to fix a cold with bloodletting.

[N810]

Seems like some DM's would rather run their game without feats, races, classes, magic equipment, and use arrays where all the numbers are 10. :smallannoyed:

[OldTrees1]

Can someone explain how, exactly, a GM is supposed to "adjust" the game for unequal rolls between players? Throw some weaker challenges and make them target the unlucky player? Whatever that may be, it really sounds like time and effort better spend on, you know, running the game. Which is enough work without having to patch up holes in the rules.

Randomness is a key element of many RPGs, D&D included. But it belongs on the table, during the game. Character generation has to be predictable. If point-buy discourages some concepts, that's the fault of the system, and fixing that by rolling for attributes is like trying to fix a cold with bloodletting.

Your antagonistic "... explain how, exactly, ..." prompted this response. My own views about rolls/point buy remain unstated and irrelevant. I am merely answering your question for information.

Encounter design can adjust for a lot of different imbalances by choosing which avenues of attack are more/less defended, varying the strength of the enemies best targeted(think a sniper on a ledge & a brute on the other side of a bridge) by particular characters, or even the distracting role (Trap monkeys tend to be busy with the trap if the party is ambushed inside a trap).

[Rhaegar]

One thing I just thought of, a DM could use to help balance out unequal rolls, is to give a bonus feat to those who have crappy rolls. If the rolls are super crappy could even award two feats. This could then give a little more diversity between players but not necessarily have the low rollers feel like they are gimped compared to the others.

[Sigreid]

Can someone explain how, exactly, a GM is supposed to "adjust" the game for unequal rolls between players? Throw some weaker challenges and make them target the unlucky player? Whatever that may be, it really sounds like time and effort better spend on, you know, running the game. Which is enough work without having to patch up holes in the rules.


I don't think the DM should. I think it is the responsibility and the fun for the players to know the strengths and weaknesses of their group and work together to maximize their effectiveness in encounters.

[Pex]

A very simple way to allow everything you're talking about (original multiclass builds, great people) without the drawbacks of rolls (risk of excessive discrepancy between players) NOR the drawbacks of classic point-buy ("everyone is the same", although I don't agree) is to just remove the "15-cap" on point-buy method and give a hefty amount of points, like 40.
Plain enough, perfectly fair for all players, and good for every build (you want a Wiz/Pal/Monk? check. You want a godly Barbarian? check).



A DM can. I support that notion and have said so in other threads before this. Trouble is, no one who is a Point Buy lobbyist approves of such matters. Indeed, another thread scolds DMs for dice rolling that allows an 18.

[OldTrees1]

A DM can. I support that notion and have said so in other threads before this. Trouble is, no one who is a Point Buy lobbyist approves of such matters. Indeed, another thread scolds DMs for dice rolling that allows an 18.

Please don't judge a position or those that support the position by the "___ ___ Lobbyists". I consider the hostility in these threads to be incredulous. Literally. I am having trouble understanding why there are threads devoted to saying "Rolling/Point Buy is badwrongfun and everyone need to use Point Buy/Rolling".

[MaxWilson]

Your antagonistic "... explain how, exactly, ..." prompted this response. My own views about rolls/point buy remain unstated and irrelevant. I am merely answering your question for information.

Encounter design can adjust for a lot of different imbalances by choosing which avenues of attack are more/less defended, varying the strength of the enemies best targeted(think a sniper on a ledge & a brute on the other side of a bridge) by particular characters, or even the distracting role (Trap monkeys tend to be busy with the trap if the party is ambushed inside a trap).

True. Additionally:

These and similar techniques need to be used for any non-homogenous party regardless of whether they were generated with point buy or random rolls or freely-chosen stats or arbitrarily uniform stats ("everyone gets all 10s, with +1 to one stat per level"). There will be heterogeneity in capabilities in your party. Even if somehow there wasn't (everyone is playing a third-level Champion Fighter with 10s in all stats and the same skills and no feats wielding a greatsword and wearing chain mail) there would be heterogeneity in player interests.

I design rather a lot of encounters by flipping through the Player's Handbook, picking an ability, and designing an encounter where that ability on a hypothetical character would shine. When my players roll up a new character, I want them to read "Ascendant Step" and think, "Oh! That would have been awesome in the cliffs adventure last week!" One mark of my success so far, I think, is that last week when one player rolled up a fresh fifth-level Sorlock for a one-shot dungeon crawl, he chose the invocations Eldritch Spear and One With Shadows (which I bumped up in power during play to be more like a Shadow Monk's Cloak of Shadows, i.e. you can move without breaking it--I don't think he fully appreciated the limitations when he first picked it) and NOT notorious powergamer choices like Agonizing Blast.

[Tanarii]

Literally. I am having trouble understanding why there are threads devoted to saying "Rolling/Point Buy is badwrongfun and everyone need to use Point Buy/Rolling".Because internet.

[Flickerdart]

I am having trouble understanding why there are threads devoted to saying "Rolling/Point Buy is badwrongfun and everyone need to use Point Buy/Rolling".
Making threads about rolling/point buy is badwrongfun and everyone needs to not make these threads.

[KorvinStarmast]

One thing I just thought of, a DM could use to help balance out unequal rolls, is to give a bonus feat to those who have crappy rolls. If the rolls are super crappy could even award two feats. This could then give a little more diversity between players but not necessarily have the low rollers feel like they are gimped compared to the others. That's a good idea. Give the gnome with a 6 strength ... the grappler feat! :smallbiggrin: (just kidding)

Because internet.
The internet: Spreading misinformation and sheer stupidity (and of course porn) at the speed of electricity (less line loss) since the fall of 1993.

[Morty]

Your antagonistic "... explain how, exactly, ..." prompted this response. My own views about rolls/point buy remain unstated and irrelevant. I am merely answering your question for information.

Encounter design can adjust for a lot of different imbalances by choosing which avenues of attack are more/less defended, varying the strength of the enemies best targeted(think a sniper on a ledge & a brute on the other side of a bridge) by particular characters, or even the distracting role (Trap monkeys tend to be busy with the trap if the party is ambushed inside a trap).

Now, those are actually some concrete answers, as opposed to a vague "DMfixit". Thank you.

Of course, that's still adding more work for a GM, who by definition already has plenty. An additional layer of complexity that simply does not need to be there, and brings nothing with it.


I don't think the DM should. I think it is the responsibility and the fun for the players to know the strengths and weaknesses of their group and work together to maximize their effectiveness in encounters.

Certainly, but there's plenty of strengths and weaknesses determined by races, classes, playstyles, feat choices etc. that are conscious on the players' part. There's really no need to add entirely random ones.

[Friv]

Why is it ok to play a human wizard with 16 intelligence but not ok to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 intelligence? 5E Point Buy forbids the dragonborn. When Point Buy is telling me I can't play a particular character Point Buy can go take a hike. Dice rolling does not guarantee me the dragonborn but allows for the possibility.

This is really more of a problem with 5E specifically than with point buy as a concept.

And besides, it ignores the alternate problem. With 4d6 drop lowest, you only have a 57% chance of being able to get that Intelligence 16 dragonborn wizard. On the other hand, you have a 16% chance of also not getting an Intelligence 16 wizard at all, because you didn't get any 15s or above in your set.

So a lot of the time, random chance is telling me I can't play a whole swath of characters. Presumably, it should also take a hike.

[HoarsHalberd]

Can someone explain how, exactly, a GM is supposed to "adjust" the game for unequal rolls between players? Throw some weaker challenges and make them target the unlucky player? Whatever that may be, it really sounds like time and effort better spend on, you know, running the game. Which is enough work without having to patch up holes in the rules.

Randomness is a key element of many RPGs, D&D included. But it belongs on the table, during the game. Character generation has to be predictable. If point-buy discourages some concepts, that's the fault of the system, and fixing that by rolling for attributes is like trying to fix a cold with bloodletting.

Firstly, your first point: By reducing the DCs of whatever that player's niche is. If he's the face, make people, on the whole, more trusting. If he's the skill monkey, tumblers are less developed in this part of the world. The only issue is combat, which is where the character will feel less useful and even then it shouldn't be a massive difference and if there is simply grant him a more powerful magic item that only makes sense for his class.

Secondly, that is your opinion of where randomness should be. The developers, and many players such as myself, like randomness in their char gen as well. I like not knowing if I'll be starting out as a gifted hero to be or a plucky underdog, that being said I also like systems with point buy only as an option, EotE or shadowrun wouldn't make sense with rolled stats, but 5e is certainly versatile and simplistic enough to handle it.

[Knaight]

Randomness is a key element of many RPGs, D&D included. But it belongs on the table, during the game. Character generation has to be predictable.
This really doesn't work as a generalization for all RPGs, they're too broad. For instance, say you have an RPG designed for one shots that is basically about a bunch of characters getting involved with Coen Brothers' style shenanigans, with a blend of farce and dark comedy. In that context, a random generation system works just fine, as can be demonstrated by Fiasco. Or what if you're running a game where each session is separated by decades, and you play influential people that affect what the starting point is next session? Again, random generation should work pretty well.

For a particular style of traditional play, I'd argue that random generation isn't a very good option. For RPGs in general though, I'd hesitate to make any broad declarations beyond "at some point in this game you will play a role", and even then that relies on 'game', 'play', and 'role' all being defined pretty broadly.


A DM can. I support that notion and have said so in other threads before this. Trouble is, no one who is a Point Buy lobbyist approves of such matters. Indeed, another thread scolds DMs for dice rolling that allows an 18.
Hold on. You're trying to use the argument of someone pushing for rolling 4d6b3 as evidence of the attitudes of "Point Buy lobbyist[s]"? If the thread was about scolding DMs for using higher point buy then it would be valid, as is it's someone who is pushing for rolling, and a lot of the push back is from so called "Point Buy lobbyist[s]". I'm in that thread arguing that the balance of 5e is not so completely delicate that a few high stats wreck it, and I prefer point buy. There's another person in that thread who said they like 34 point buy. That thread really doesn't argue for your position here.

Actually, you know what. I'm just going to say this: As a point buy lobbyist, I approve of such matters.

[OldTrees1]

Now, those are actually some concrete answers, as opposed to a vague "DMfixit". Thank you.

Of course, that's still adding more work for a GM, who by definition already has plenty. An additional layer of complexity that simply does not need to be there, and brings nothing with it.

You're welcome. (Dungeonscape was my favorite splatbook :smallbiggrin:)

Those encounter design adjustments can also be used to create variety in the combats, so the additional work of using the adjustments to also rebalance is less than one might think. Any increase can be the straw that breaks the camels back or otherwise be an increase too far, but the mental/design infrastructure used for such adjustments is a credit to the campaign designed. But still, any increase can be an increase too far, so groups will vary.


Making threads about rolling/point buy is badwrongfun and everyone needs to not make these threads.
:smallredface::smallredface::smallredface:
It's a (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It's+a+fair+cop) fair cop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&ab_channel=NM05). I apologize.

[Pex]

This is really more of a problem with 5E specifically than with point buy as a concept.

And besides, it ignores the alternate problem. With 4d6 drop lowest, you only have a 57% chance of being able to get that Intelligence 16 dragonborn wizard. On the other hand, you have a 16% chance of also not getting an Intelligence 16 wizard at all, because you didn't get any 15s or above in your set.

So a lot of the time, random chance is telling me I can't play a whole swath of characters. Presumably, it should also take a hike.

No, random chance offers the possibility. Point Buy flat out refuses. Random chance wins.

I do agree 5E's implementation of Point Buy is the bulk of the problem. It's what we got so Point Buy suffers for it. In 3E my issue was DMs insisting on using too low a value making MAD classes mathematically unplayable, i. e. 25/28. Pathfinder I had a knee-jerk initial trepidation, but after a few campaigns using it I've come to be ok with it. I prefer 20 or 25. I'm not a fan at all of 15, but I can manage though I'd never play a paladin or monk. Low Point Buy hurts MAD classes big time.

[Corran]

I've mentioned it in other threads. Point Buy leads to cookie-cutter characters. You will not have dragonborn wizards or halfling barbarians because of it.
Point buy has nothing to do with cookie-cutter characters, nor with race and class combination. Optimization causes what you claim. I can still play my high elf paladin if I want to, and that has absolutely nothing to do with wether I rolled stats or not.

[Zman]

And why couldn't this have simply been a response post in one of the other handful of current threads??? Why clutter up the main page more? Also, the tone of your post is rude and condescending and isn't conducive to quality discussion. As for content,it is lacking and please use the occasionsal capital letter and give it a proofread for grammar which will go a long way to making it bearable to read through.

[mgshamster]

One way which rolling could work and help eliminate the disparity between players' rolled stats is this:

Have everyone at the table roll. From there, anyone can use any of the sets rolled. So if one person rolls really crappy, they can ignore that set and use a better set - unless they want to use that set for character concept purposes.

[Corran]

And why couldn't this have simply been a response post in one of the other handful of current threads??? Why clutter up the main page more? Also, the tone of your post is rude and condescending and isn't conducive to quality discussion. As for content,it is lacking and please use the occasionsal capital letter and give it a proofread for grammar which will go a long way to making it bearable to read through.
You are right, I'll remove that part.

[Zman]

You are right, I'll remove that part.

My response was directed at the OP, not you. I agreed with your posts if memory serves me right.

[Sigreid]

And why couldn't this have simply been a response post in one of the other handful of current threads??? Why clutter up the main page more? Also, the tone of your post is rude and condescending and isn't conducive to quality discussion. As for content,it is lacking and please use the occasionsal capital letter and give it a proofread for grammar which will go a long way to making it bearable to read through.

To be fair, that's been the tone of all of these threads.

[Solusek]

It is possible to have stat rolling and also be fair between players. I've come up with a number of rolling methods over the years, and some of the ones people liked best involved community rolled dice where everyone got to choose from among the same pool of randomly rolled stat arrays (and multiple people could, and often did, pick the same ones)

Rolling stats doesn't *have* to mean each person rolls their separate 3d6 or 4d6 six times.

I like stat rolling because it creates more organic looking characters. Point buy encourages dumping some stats and maxing others in order to make mechanically strong PCs. With rolling you get a bit of random variation, which I like a lot.

Sometimes it's cool to play a fighter who just randomly happens to have a 15 intelligence, or a Wizard who is both smart and wise, without crippling their combat ability in an effort to make those numbers happen through point buy.

[Tanarii]

Rolling stats doesn't *have* to mean each person rolls their separate 3d6 or 4d6 six times.Unless you're talking about, y'know, following the rules. :p

It's all very well to claim rolling, standard array, or point buy can work as long as you Rule 0. Or if we're branching out into other game systems, or theoretical game design. But it's important to keep an eye on the standard rule of D&D 5e as a basis for the discussion,

(Nothing personal or even specific to you. I just see (and do myself) a lot of "it's okay because Rule 0" in this and other discussions.)

[OldTrees1]

Unless you're talking about, y'know, following the rules. :p

It's all very well to claim rolling, standard array, or point buy can work as long as you Rule 0. Or if we're branching out into other game systems, or theoretical game design. But it's important to keep an eye on the standard rule of D&D 5e as a basis for the discussion,

(Nothing personal or even specific to you. I just see (and do myself) a lot of "it's okay because Rule 0" in this and other discussions.)

Why? Why is it important to keep an eye on the standard rules when these are the rules that DMs frequently modify and alter to suit their groups? Doesn't it make more sense to talk about rules as used rather than RAW? Sure RAW is constant and static, but RAU is the only thing relevant to actual games. In this specific case limiting yourself to RAW by censoring RAU misses the entire point of the discussion.

The right path is not always the easiest.

[KorvinStarmast]

The right path is not always the easiest. The Tao of D&D. Tell us, oh ancient and arboreal one, of this Right Path. :smallbiggrin: (Did I just roll up a monk?)


Also, the tone of your post is rude and condescending and isn't conducive to quality discussion.
This from the poster who described rolling for stats as barbaric?
Whoops, that was Zaq, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20574818&postcount=20) bad memory.

I agree that we didn't need another thread, however.

[Tanarii]

Why?Because Oberoni Fallacy.


The internet: Spreading misinformation and sheer stupidity (and of course porn) at the speed of electricity (less line loss) since the fall of 1993.I was more going for - The internet: allowing ridiculously extreme positions to be taken over personal opinions since inception.

[OldTrees1]

The Tao of D&D. Tell us, oh ancient and arboreal one, of this Right Path. :smallbiggrin: (Did I just roll up a monk?)
"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." I do not presume to know anything to tell about this Right Path.


Because Oberoni Fallacy.

Misapplied. The Oberoni Fallacy says "When critiquing a game, don't try to excuse bad game design by saying DMs can modify it when they game". However here we have different DMs immaturely arguing about the pros and cons of different mechanics for stat generation. This is not a thread limited to only giving a game critique. This is a thread about DMs discussing the pros/cons of rules they use.

[Tanarii]

Misapplied. The Oberoni Fallacy says "When critiquing a game, don't try to excuse bad game design by saying DMs can modify it when they game". However here we have different DMs immaturely arguing about the pros and cons of different mechanics for stat generation. This is not a thread limited to only giving a game critique. This is a thread about DMs discussing the pros/cons of rules they use.
What we have here is a thread started by someone advocating using stat rolls in 5e in a forum about 5e. It spread out from there. As such, if you're advocating rolling stats works with a house rule, it's worth noting that it's a house rule.

[mgshamster]

I think the Oberani fallacy applies much less to 5e than it does to previous editions. 5e is all about customizing the game and using variant rules and house rules to make the kind of game you want to play.

Claiming it's a fallacy to compensate for a bad rule with a house rule in a game which actively encourages you to change parts of the game you don't like with house rules and variant rules seems odd.

I mean, rule 0 was still a thing in previous editions, but it wasn't encouraged nearly as much then as it is with 5e.

[OldTrees1]

What we have here is a thread started by someone advocating using stat rolls in 5e in a forum about 5e. It spread out from there. As such, if you're advocating rolling stats works with a house rule, it's worth noting that it's a house rule.
So you agree that the thread started by advocating a specific 5E rules_as_used for use in 5E? Glad you are on the same page. :P Certainly marking the houserules as houserule is good since it increases the clarity of communication, but all RAU are an inherent part of the discussion. Not just RAW.

[Bakenal]

I was an advocate for rolled stats. I liked the potential of a diverse group. But the one group I convinced to do this with all rolled high. My paladin rolled garbage stats. Made for a pretty bad time frankly. But it was my idea so I had to live with it.

[Dimcair]

Two sides here:

On one I read an awful lot of personal opinion/preference.

On the other I read more logic and numbers.

... Guess which side I am inclined to believe more.

[Tanarii]

On the other I read more logic and numbers.Not really. I mean, everyone likes to think that what they say is logical, and everyone likes to think that they prefer something because it's logical.

But rolling vs standard array boils down to personal opinions and preferences, no matter how you cut it.

(Exception for official play. Because they can't make sure someone rolling isn't cheating.)

[OldTrees1]

Two sides here:

On one I read an awful lot of personal opinion/preference.

On the other I read more logic and numbers.

... Guess which side I am inclined to believe more.

Trick question right? An issue of preference should have both logic and preferences right?
Or was it a trick question in that I cannot identify which position is which merely from your post?
Wait, I know, it is a trick question because you put more weight in the positions than the arguments people that hold those positions use?

Was I close?

[Dimcair]

It is wrong to assume that preference = logic.


But it seems I hit a nerve there^^

[Anonymouswizard]

The worst part is when yesterday I tried to argue for rolling up stats as in the PhB, and had to use a very weird method resulting in me having 3 20s at first level, at which point I threw my hands in the air and made the silliest Warlock I could.

Yeah, I'm fine with rolling as long as it roughly aligns with the PhB rules.

[Arial Black]

...but there is NOTHING you can do with rolling that you can't do with point buy...

Really? Nothing?

Okay, I'll have a 16 and a 7 (before racial mods) at 1st level. How does point-buy do that?

If it can't, then this shows that there is something that rolling can do that point-buy can't.

[Pex]

Point buy has nothing to do with cookie-cutter characters, nor with race and class combination. Optimization causes what you claim. I can still play my high elf paladin if I want to, and that has absolutely nothing to do with wether I rolled stats or not.

You're more than welcome to. A player can have a dragonborn wizard and be happy with "only" a 15 for Intelligence or maybe even 14. If I want to have a 16 Intelligence for my wizard I am not in the wrong for wanting it so. Point Buy forbids me from being a dragonborn. Dice rolling gives me a chance.

[mgshamster]

You're more than welcome to. A player can have a dragonborn wizard and be happy with "only" a 15 for Intelligence or maybe even 14. If I want to have a 16 Intelligence for my wizard I am not in the wrong for wanting it so. Point Buy forbids me from being a dragonborn. Dice rolling gives me a chance.

No it doesn't. Just put your first ASI in int and you'll have a 16 or more.

[Arial Black]

You're meant to start weak, the idea of idk... 95% of GOOD STORIES, is about going from Zero to Hero.

I find that 95% of heroic fiction (books, TV, film) has the heroes be the best (or nearly so) in the city/country/world/galaxy. Comparatively few have the hero start as a farmboy, and even then Luke Skywalker was already one of the best pilots in the galaxy with phenomenal levels of The Force.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Someone probably said this, but there's nothing that can be accomplished by rolling stats that cannot be accomplished faster, easier and without arbitrary waypoints by setting your stats to the numbers you require.

[mgshamster]

Someone probably said this, but there's nothing that can be accomplished by rolling stats that cannot be accomplished faster, easier and without arbitrary waypoints by setting your stats to the numbers you require.

I've always been partial to that.

Have a concept? Ok, assign your stats according to your concept and have at it. No point buy, no dice rolling, no array - just come up with a concept and assign.

[Elbeyon]

Someone probably said this, but there's nothing that can be accomplished by rolling stats that cannot be accomplished faster, easier and without arbitrary waypoints by setting your stats to the numbers you require.I think you're the first in the thread.

[Pex]

No it doesn't. Just put your first ASI in int and you'll have a 16 or more.

Not at first level. At fourth level I could only get a 17 as a dragonborn where as human I'd be 18 in Point Buy. At 8th level dragonborn still has to think hard of getting to 19 or 18 and +1 somewhere else where as human can consider a feat, presuming of course having an 18 at some level is important enough for the player which is not a bad thing. With dice rolling, both can possibly reach 18 at 4th level and consider a feat at 8. If really luck, have an 18 at level 1 and consider a feat at level 4. Getting to 20 can wait a long while.


Someone probably said this, but there's nothing that can be accomplished by rolling stats that cannot be accomplished faster, easier and without arbitrary waypoints by setting your stats to the numbers you require.

At first level I require my wizard have 16 Intelligence and be playing a dragonborn. Impossible with Point Buy, RAW.

[Elbeyon]

At first level I require my wizard have 16 Intelligence and be playing a dragonborn. Impossible with Point Buy, RAW.The point was if you want/need a 16 int for the concept just start with a 16 int. No need to roll or do point buy.

[Knaight]

I find that 95% of heroic fiction (books, TV, film) has the heroes be the best (or nearly so) in the city/country/world/galaxy. Comparatively few have the hero start as a farmboy, and even then Luke Skywalker was already one of the best pilots in the galaxy with phenomenal levels of The Force.

Plus, the original quote didn't specify heroic fiction, which is where this gets really hilarious. I doubt anywhere near 95% of good fiction even reliably follows a central character, thus making it intrinsically unsuitable for the zero to hero framework. Of the things that at least do that much, there's plenty of tragedies, fiction about people who start highly competent, fiction about normal people who stay normal people, so on and so forth.

[Pex]

The point was if you want/need a 16 int for the concept just start with a 16 int. No need to roll or do point buy.

But that would be a house rule and not relevant. Some people do use static arrays of their own, for example 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 or 18 16 14 12 10 8 or 16 16 14 14 12 12 or whatever, but they're not dice rolling and not RAW Point Buy. Having more than 27 points to spend and allow for purchasing above 15 settles much of my issues with 5E Point Buy and still be using the Point Buy method, but again, it would be a house rule, not RAW, just like for dice rolling it would be a house rule to allow a reroll or trade off stats or use a different method than 4d6b3.

[Knaight]

But that would be a house rule and not relevant. Some people do use static arrays of their own, for example 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 or 18 16 14 12 10 8 or 16 16 14 14 12 12 or whatever, but they're not dice rolling and not RAW Point Buy. Having more than 27 points to spend and allow for purchasing above 15 settles much of my issues with 5E Point Buy and still be using the Point Buy method, but again, it would be a house rule, not RAW, just like for dice rolling it would be a house rule to allow a reroll or trade off stats or use a different method than 4d6b3.

I suspect the issue here is that there are two different definitions for each term being used, and the implications (particularly regarding things like what the weaknesses of systems are) of each definition are dramatically different. A quick rundown:

Rolling
Definition A: Any attribute generation system generated with randomizers.
Definition B: The attribute system where you roll 4d6b3 6 times, then assign them to each attribute.

Point Buy
Definition A: Any attribute generation system where you spend points to alter attributes.
Definition B: The particular attribute system where you assign 27 points with the costs based on the attached table to the 6 attributes.

Array
Definition A: Any attribute generation system where there is one or more sets of existing 6 number sets to assign to attributes, where the whole set is packaged on its own.
Definition B: The particular attribute system where you assign the particular 6 number set [15, 14, etc.] to the 6 attributes.

I've been assuming that we were talking about broad design type stuff here, and thus assuming Definition A is in place. If Definition B is instead used, my appreciation for point buy goes down a fair bit.

[Sigreid]

The problem with all of these threads is it all comes down to preference. We get a bunch of people passionately trying to convince others that their preferred method is best, but as page after page of debate goes on I don't think anyone is ever persuaded to see it another way. And really, the debate is pointless. Each table needs to agree on how they are going to generate characters. Once that is done, you either go with what is agreed to or find another table. Arguing with people you are most likely never going to play with over the internet is completely pointless beyond the first 2-3 posts where people a couple people voice what they find good and bad about each system. Once that is done, it's really just noise. Even if the noise is somewhat entertaining.

[Gtdead]

Really? Nothing?

Okay, I'll have a 16 and a 7 (before racial mods) at 1st level. How does point-buy do that?

If it can't, then this shows that there is something that rolling can do that point-buy can't.

My comment was in response to someone who said that rolling gives more opportunities for character building. In that context, my comment is true. I said that pointbuy allows you to do whatever you want, even it isn't very optimized.

What's your point? That you can min max beyond 15/8? Well sure, I agree.

[Pex]

Point Buy
Definition A: Any attribute generation system where you spend points to alter attributes.

Not a fan as a matter of aesthetic preference because it leads to roughly the same scores just assigned differently based on class, but I can work with it depending on implementation by RAW (3E - 32 points, Pathfinder - 20 or 25 points, 15 points grudgingly but I just won't play a paladin or monk.) I would still maintain Point Buy inherently hurts MAD classes because RAW you don't have enough points to have all your scores decent with "decent" being subjective to personal taste - Pathfinder 15 Point Buy and 3E below 32 points. Even at 32 monk struggles, but that's strong personal opinion. Ironically for me since I don't like the system I have no issues with 4E Point Buy RAW because of the way the system works. All classes are dual-ability dependent. It's easy to be decent at both, and if you're willing to voluntarily choose you can make one excellent while the other is not and only focus on powers that use your excellent ability. Saving throws use the better modifier of two scores, so even though your other scores are lower the penalty is minimal. For an entirely Point Buy system like GURPS, which I haven't played in literally decades, I may think an individual something is too expensive, but I never really had any issues as a whole in terms of character creation.


Definition B: The particular attribute system where you assign 27 points with the costs based on the attached table to the 6 attributes.


Since I like using the word a lot, to me 5E RAW Point Buy is an "abomination" for the reasons I've stated many times in many threads.

[silverkyo]

This thread is definition on internet hot air. The amount of hostility floating around here is frankly absurd.

If you like RAW and it works for your campaign, use it. If it doesn't, don't. That's the beauty of D&D in general.

[Arial Black]

My comment was in response to someone who said that rolling gives more opportunities for character building. In that context, my comment is true. I said that pointbuy allows you to do whatever you want, even it isn't very optimized.

What's your point? That you can min max beyond 15/8? Well sure, I agree.

As another just posted, My 3.5E group has played together since 2E, and we quickly got to a stage where we just choose our own ability scores. Does that mean we have six 18s each? No.

Why not?

Each method (rolling, choosing, or point-buy), beyond the maths of it, can't help but influence the attitude of its users. If you know that you can choose your own scores, what happens is that you choose scores that you think the rest of your group won't think are unreasonable. Your scores might be high compared to, say, 27 point-buy, but not compared to each other.

But although working with no limits means that you choose to limit yourself, point-buy has a built-in limit: 27 points in our case. That results in knowing that you don't need to feel ashamed or embarrassed about having scores that are too good, because you can say that your point-buy adds up to 27, just like everyone else. This allows you to squeeze every advantage from allocating these point in the most optimal way you can, without guilt.

So we do. There is an evolutionary pressure, with point-buy, to get the most out of those points. Why should I waste any points on, say, strength when I know I'm going to be Dex-based, when those points could be used to improve the scores of stats related to the skills I want to use?

In our AL CoS group we have six PCs and every single one has 16 Dex. No-one has better than 10 Str, and those that wasted 1 or 2 points on Str would undoubtedly be more effective if they had spent those points elsewhere. They will realise that soon enough, and next time they make a character they won't make the same mistake again.

So point-buy soon leads to stats of either 8 or 16 exactly for Str/Dex, and that bothers me on a realism front. At least with rolled stats you'd get a better (read: more realistic) spread of scores, even if you put your lowest roll in one and your highest in the other.

Point-buy, by its very nature, actually encourages min-maxing to a greater extent than the other methods. It rewards rules mastery more than the other methods. Personally, I'm pretty good at system mastery, and the dearth of high scores with a 27 point-buy almost forces me to make the most of it. When I roll, all I can do is assign the scores that I rolled. When I can choose my own scores, I cannot min/max unless I have six 18s, and I won't do that just because of the reaction I'd get from the other players. In fact, when I can choose my own scores, I actually tend to choose to have the lowest score I think my concept can get away with in each ability; the opposite of the min-maxing pressure encouraged by point-buy.

[Fast Jimmy]

You're more than welcome to. A player can have a dragonborn wizard and be happy with "only" a 15 for Intelligence or maybe even 14. If I want to have a 16 Intelligence for my wizard I am not in the wrong for wanting it so. Point Buy forbids me from being a dragonborn. Dice rolling gives me a chance.

And I would say if you really want to, work with your DM to see if racial stats can be reapplied in the case of your character due to a specific background.

Or, god forbid, you play a Wizard with 15 Intelligence. A +2 is not the end of the world at Level 1, it only represents a 5% decrease in hitting or making a Save. I'd take a dragonborn's breath weapon at Level 1 over, say, a Wood Gnome's tinkering.

[Fast Jimmy]

As another just posted, My 3.5E group has played together since 2E, and we quickly got to a stage where we just choose our own ability scores. Does that mean we have six 18s each? No.

Why not?

Each method (rolling, choosing, or point-buy), beyond the maths of it, can't help but influence the attitude of its users. If you know that you can choose your own scores, what happens is that you choose scores that you think the rest of your group won't think are unreasonable. Your scores might be high compared to, say, 27 point-buy, but not compared to each other.

But although working with no limits means that you choose to limit yourself, point-buy has a built-in limit: 27 points in our case. That results in knowing that you don't need to feel ashamed or embarrassed about having scores that are too good, because you can say that your point-buy adds up to 27, just like everyone else. This allows you to squeeze every advantage from allocating these point in the most optimal way you can, without guilt.

So we do. There is an evolutionary pressure, with point-buy, to get the most out of those points. Why should I waste any points on, say, strength when I know I'm going to be Dex-based, when those points could be used to improve the scores of stats related to the skills I want to use?

In our AL CoS group we have six PCs and every single one has 16 Dex. No-one has better than 10 Str, and those that wasted 1 or 2 points on Str would undoubtedly be more effective if they had spent those points elsewhere. They will realise that soon enough, and next time they make a character they won't make the same mistake again.

So point-buy soon leads to stats of either 8 or 16 exactly for Str/Dex, and that bothers me on a realism front. At least with rolled stats you'd get a better (read: more realistic) spread of scores, even if you put your lowest roll in one and your highest in the other.

Point-buy, by its very nature, actually encourages min-maxing to a greater extent than the other methods. It rewards rules mastery more than the other methods. Personally, I'm pretty good at system mastery, and the dearth of high scores with a 27 point-buy almost forces me to make the most of it. When I roll, all I can do is assign the scores that I rolled. When I can choose my own scores, I cannot min/max unless I have six 18s, and I won't do that just because of the reaction I'd get from the other players. In fact, when I can choose my own scores, I actually tend to choose to have the lowest score I think my concept can get away with in each ability; the opposite of the min-maxing pressure encouraged by point-buy.

This argument isn't against Point Buy. Its against the uselessness of some Attributes, like Strength, Intelligence or Charisma for characters where they aren't integral to their class or skill types. If every Attribute was equal for all classes in terms of applicability, then Point Buy would still be the superior system. Grabbing stats from the air just because your whole party does it isn't smart game design... just like your assumption that everyone should have Str 8, everyone who got to pick stats would eventually have 18's across the board.

[Tanarii]

Each table needs to agree on how they are going to generate characters. Once that is done, you either go with what is agreed to or find another table. note that technically, each player decides between rolling and standard array. It's presented in the PHB as a player choice, not a DM chooses or whole table does the same thing choice.

Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment.

Edit: personally, I leave it to the players unless there's a specific reason. For example the players and I all deciding we're running an old school dungeon & wilderness crawl sandbox, and wanting to have that old-time random feel. If a player requests the point buy variant, then I take it to the table after considering the campaign style. Usually if that's a table option, everyone uses it and we do a relatively high optimization game.

[Pex]

And I would say if you really want to, work with your DM to see if racial stats can be reapplied in the case of your character due to a specific background.

Or, god forbid, you play a Wizard with 15 Intelligence. A +2 is not the end of the world at Level 1, it only represents a 5% decrease in hitting or making a Save. I'd take a dragonborn's breath weapon at Level 1 over, say, a Wood Gnome's tinkering.

Yet I can have my 16 Intelligence wizard as a human or high elf using Point Buy and everyone would be nodding in approval. However, because I want to play a dragonborn or dwarf or halfling or any race that doesn't give +1 IN it's all tough feces. With dice rolling I can have my cake and eat it too. If a +2 is not the end of the world because it's only a 5% decrease than neither is +4 for a roll or racially adjusted 18 which is only a 5% increase over a 16 Point Buy allows.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept that particular races in general might have less wizards than others due to not having a natural inclination, and the wizards they do have are less effective due to not having a racial bonus to IN compared to races who do. That's for the DM to decide how stereotypical he wants the NPCs. However, this is my PC. I am a special snowflake and am not like the rest of my character's race. I am different. If I want to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 IN at 1st level I should not be forbidden from doing so, as Point Buy does but Dice Rolling does not. This harkens back to the advice in the 2E DMG. A player wanting to play a ranger wasn't lucky in his rolls to qualify as there were attribute prerequisites for classes back then. Even if the DM was to allow adjustment of rolled scores the DMG tells the DM to deny the player the needed scores for being a ranger. He qualifies as a fighter so why does he need to be a ranger? Let him be a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. "Inspire roleplaying!" It gives similar denials for illusionist and paladins because they're so rare. That was bad advice then, and it's bad advice now. It doesn't matter how rare classes are. The player wants to play one, so let him play one of those rare beings of the world. Mind, there was no Point Buy back then so this was also a knock against Dice Rolling and led to the desire of a Point Buy system in the first place.

This is unique to 5E. 3E Point Buy doesn't do this. 4E Point Buy doesn't do this. Pathfinder Point Buy doesn't do this. You can have a 16 in your class's prime easy regardless of race. Getting an 18, as those Point Buy systems do allow for 18s, is hard if your race doesn't increase a class prime stat yet it's not impossible, but good luck if it's a MAD class. If there's a racial penalty you'll never get an 18 in it, Point Buy or Dice Rolling, but you can still get a 16 if you're really lucky in rolling and willing to put a rolled 18 in it. It's a waste of points to spend for 18 in it to get a 16 using Point Buy. That I have to lump and acknowledge for this particular case it is the race's "fault" and not the character creation method.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yet I can have my 16 Intelligence wizard as a human or high elf using Point Buy and everyone would be nodding in approval. However, because I want to play a dragonborn or dwarf or halfling or any race that doesn't give +1 IN it's all tough feces. With dice rolling I can have my cake and eat it too. If a +2 is not the end of the world because it's only a 5% decrease than neither is +4 for a roll or racially adjusted 18 which is only a 5% increase over a 16 Point Buy allows.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept that particular races in general might have less wizards than others due to not having a natural inclination, and the wizards they do have are less effective due to not having a racial bonus to IN compared to races who do. That's for the DM to decide how stereotypical he wants the NPCs. However, this is my PC. I am a special snowflake and am not like the rest of my character's race. I am different. If I want to play a dragonborn wizard with 16 IN at 1st level I should not be forbidden from doing so, as Point Buy does but Dice Rolling does not. This harkens back to the advice in the 2E DMG. A player wanting to play a ranger wasn't lucky in his rolls to qualify as there were attribute prerequisites for classes back then. Even if the DM was to allow adjustment of rolled scores the DMG tells the DM to deny the player the needed scores for being a ranger. He qualifies as a fighter so why does he need to be a ranger? Let him be a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. "Inspire roleplaying!" It gives similar denials for illusionist and paladins because they're so rare. That was bad advice then, and it's bad advice now. It doesn't matter how rare classes are. The player wants to play one, so let him play one of those rare beings of the world. Mind, there was no Point Buy back then so this was also a knock against Dice Rolling and led to the desire of a Point Buy system in the first place.

This is unique to 5E. 3E Point Buy doesn't do this. 4E Point Buy doesn't do this. Pathfinder Point Buy doesn't do this. You can have a 16 in your class's prime easy regardless of race. Getting an 18, as those Point Buy systems do allow for 18s, is hard if your race doesn't increase a class prime stat yet it's not impossible, but good luck if it's a MAD class. If there's a racial penalty you'll never get an 18 in it, Point Buy or Dice Rolling, but you can still get a 16 if you're really lucky in rolling and willing to put a rolled 18 in it. It's a waste of points to spend for 18 in it to get a 16 using Point Buy. That I have to lump and acknowledge for this particular case it is the race's "fault" and not the character creation method.

Here's the problem with your entire example... crappy rolls. What if I really want to play a monk, but my highest roll is a 13? Being a low Dex, low Wisdom monk is practically a death sentence.

This argument betrays the real goal of rolling for stats... uber characters. People are all for stat rolls when they get two 18's, but suddenly if they get terrible rolls, they plead with the DM to roll again or use the Standard Array/Point Buy as a "better than my crap roll" safety net. While I understand certain players will stick with their stat rolls, I have seen this happen often enough to know that a DM doesn't want to have one player who is absolutely worthless playing next to the guy who is two ASIs away from godhood. Not only is it a balancing nightmare, it's a fun issue between players.

The fact that you assume a 16 or higher is just that - an assumption. Point Buy allows any character to be played... dice rolling brings in the risk of characters legitimately being too weak to survive. That's why people are against it - power gradient between players should not be that variant.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Yet I can have my 16 Intelligence wizard as a human or high elf using Point Buy and everyone would be nodding in approval. However, because I want to play a dragonborn or dwarf or halfling or any race that doesn't give +1 IN it's all tough feces.

This isn't an argument against point buy, it's an argument against the existence of racial stat bonuses that leave you coveting your neighbour's starting IN of 16 while you're at 15. But saying that 16 is acceptable as IN for a level 1 character but 15 is unacceptable doesn't become any less arbitrary because rolling holds out the promise of rendering the whole racial bonus and ASI economy irrelevant if you're just lucky enough.

[Arial Black]

The best character creation systems combine a level of chance and a level of control. All control with no chance leaves no room for ideas that fit outside the limited possibilities allowed, while total chance may leave you with something you have no interest in playing.

With rolling, you are not stuck with 3d6 six times in order, like it or lump it! You can have 4d6 drop 1, or assign those six scores to the attributes you want, or both. 3d6 seven or twelve times, assign the best six. Re-roll if too low, or not!

There are many ways to get the desired combination of chance and control if you use rolling, but there is no way to do that using point-buy.

Superhero RPGs feel this divide more keenly than D&D, because of superpowers. Do the players roll their powers randomly, or use point-buy like Champions?

Here is a quote from Simon Burley from his SHRPG Squadron UK:-

"I love the character generation system for Squadron UK. It straddles the divide between RANDOM and DESIGN systems. It allows you to design a hero you want to play but the random element gives a nudge to your imagination and stops you creating the same hero over and over again.

"I'm not interested in totally random character generation. This too often gives characters with unfeasible combinations of powers which players don't want to run.

"In addition, the player doesn't feel 'ownership' of the character having done little except roll the dice to create them.

"In the same way I don't like game systems which allow players total control of the design of their characters. I don't want to insult anyone but we don't all have the imagination to come up with a brand new superhero. Then there's the guy who spends hours poring over the rulebooks trying to squeeze every little advantage out of the system. Not to mention the players who - when their favourite character is killed or sidelined - simply creates a clone.

"So, for me, the perfect system for making Heroes should have a random element tempered by the player selection and design."

Rolling enables that. Point-buy doesn't. Point-buy allows and encourages you to squeeze every advantage from your points until you get the 'best' fighter or wizard or whatever, and you can just make another clone with a different name when the first one bites it. It creates an unreal population of people with Str/Dex of 8/16 or 16/8.

I understand why organised play needs point-buy. The shame you'd feel for, say, choosing six 18s would rapidly evaporate in front of strangers who are doing the same.

In nearly four decades of playing D&D, I have never used point-buy outside of organised play!

[JoeJ]

This isn't an argument against point buy, it's an argument against the existence of racial stat bonuses that leave you coveting your neighbour's starting IN of 16 while you're at 15. But saying that 16 is acceptable as IN for a level 1 character but 15 is unacceptable doesn't become any less arbitrary because rolling holds out the promise of rendering the whole racial bonus and ASI economy irrelevant if you're just lucky enough.

Racial stat bonuses aren't really a good mix with point buy. Instead there should be stat minimums you have to meet to play a certain race for characters created using point buy, with bonuses only for rolled characters.

[mgshamster]

Racial stat bonuses aren't really a good mix with point buy. Instead there should be stat minimums you have to meet to play a certain race for characters created using point buy, with bonuses only for rolled characters.

Wait, what? Why? That's needlessly complicated.

[JoeJ]

Wait, what? Why? That's needlessly complicated.

It's not needless. It maintains the differences between races while allowing players greater freedom in creating their characters. For example, it would allow Pex to play his 16 Intelligence dragonborn wizard as long as he has at least a 12 Strength and 11 Charisma (or whatever the minimum is set at).

[Tanarii]

Racial stat bonuses aren't really a good mix with point buy. Instead there should be stat minimums you have to meet to play a certain race for characters created using point buy, with bonuses only for rolled characters.

Agreed. Bonuses to attributes break point buy systems that use scaling costs for higher attributes.

[mgshamster]

It's not needless. It maintains the differences between races while allowing players greater freedom in creating their characters. For example, it would allow Pex to play his 16 Intelligence dragonborn wizard as long as he has at least a 12 Strength and 11 Charisma (or whatever the minimum is set at).

Ok. I can see that.

[Morty]

Someone probably said this, but there's nothing that can be accomplished by rolling stats that cannot be accomplished faster, easier and without arbitrary waypoints by setting your stats to the numbers you require.

That is an excellent point.


You're more than welcome to. A player can have a dragonborn wizard and be happy with "only" a 15 for Intelligence or maybe even 14. If I want to have a 16 Intelligence for my wizard I am not in the wrong for wanting it so. Point Buy forbids me from being a dragonborn. Dice rolling gives me a chance.

Unless you roll poorly, and your chances to play anything remotely non-standard sink like the Titanic. If you can't effectively combine some races and classes using point-buy, then that is a serious systemic problem, but one point-buy doesn't fix.

Racial bonuses to attributes are a very poor idea all around, precisely because of this issue.

[Pex]

Of course dice rolling is not perfect. It has its own problems. There are many ways to account for it with house rules just like one can house rule Point Buy to fix its problems, such as increasing the number of points to spend (or lower ability score cost) and in 5E's case allow for purchasing above 15. 5E's fault for dice rolling is not specifically saying there should be a minimum that allows for a reroll if not met. 3E has that as an official rule. Despite its fighters allergic to trees fetish, even 2E had its own suggestions when Point Buy in D&D wasn't even a thing.

[Solusek]

The best character creation systems combine a level of chance and a level of control. All control with no chance leaves no room for ideas that fit outside the limited possibilities allowed, while total chance may leave you with something you have no interest in playing.

With rolling, you are not stuck with 3d6 six times in order, like it or lump it! You can have 4d6 drop 1, or assign those six scores to the attributes you want, or both. 3d6 seven or twelve times, assign the best six. Re-roll if too low, or not!

There are many ways to get the desired combination of chance and control if you use rolling, but there is no way to do that using point-buy.

Superhero RPGs feel this divide more keenly than D&D, because of superpowers. Do the players roll their powers randomly, or use point-buy like Champions?

Here is a quote from Simon Burley from his SHRPG Squadron UK:-

"I love the character generation system for Squadron UK. It straddles the divide between RANDOM and DESIGN systems. It allows you to design a hero you want to play but the random element gives a nudge to your imagination and stops you creating the same hero over and over again.

"I'm not interested in totally random character generation. This too often gives characters with unfeasible combinations of powers which players don't want to run.

"In addition, the player doesn't feel 'ownership' of the character having done little except roll the dice to create them.

"In the same way I don't like game systems which allow players total control of the design of their characters. I don't want to insult anyone but we don't all have the imagination to come up with a brand new superhero. Then there's the guy who spends hours poring over the rulebooks trying to squeeze every little advantage out of the system. Not to mention the players who - when their favourite character is killed or sidelined - simply creates a clone.

"So, for me, the perfect system for making Heroes should have a random element tempered by the player selection and design."

Rolling enables that. Point-buy doesn't. Point-buy allows and encourages you to squeeze every advantage from your points until you get the 'best' fighter or wizard or whatever, and you can just make another clone with a different name when the first one bites it. It creates an unreal population of people with Str/Dex of 8/16 or 16/8.

I understand why organised play needs point-buy. The shame you'd feel for, say, choosing six 18s would rapidly evaporate in front of strangers who are doing the same.

In nearly four decades of playing D&D, I have never used point-buy outside of organised play!

This was beautiful to read. It sums up exactly how I feel the perfect character generation system should be. Some control, some randomness. I like to have a few quirky unexpected things happen when I'm doing character generation, but not so many that it ruins the initial idea of what I want to play.

[Pex]

This was beautiful to read. It sums up exactly how I feel the perfect character generation system should be. Some control, some randomness. I like to have a few quirky unexpected things happen when I'm doing character generation, but not so many that it ruins the initial idea of what I want to play.

Shameless plug, perfect opportunity to restate the 27-25-23 method I like. It's a combination of dice rolling and point buy. Learned it for 3E, adapted to 5E:

1) Roll 4d6b3 three times for your first three scores. Minimum of any roll is 7.

2) Take one score and subtract it from 27. This is your fourth score. Cannot go above 18, so no 27 - 7 for a 20.

3) Take another rolled score and subtract it from 25 for your fifth score. Note that 25 - 7 = 18.

4) The last rolled score is subtracted from 23 for your sixth score. (Edit: Minimum score of 7, such that if you rolled an 18, 23 - 18 = 5 becomes 7).

5) Add +2 to any one score. Cannot go above 18.

6) Arrange as desired and apply racial modifiers.

Since officially a 5E RAW dice rolling character could be lucky enough to have a 20 at 1st level that could happen here. However, I can appreciate that even indulging an 18, a 20 at 1st level can be just too much to accept. Combine steps 5 & 6 such that the +2 and racial modifier cannot together give a score higher than 18 but can be combined otherwise.

This method mitigates luck. If you roll high you have low scores. If you roll low you have high scores. Set minuends frames everyone scores into the same range.

Example: Wanting to play a dragonborn wizard.

1) Rolled 12, 12, 11

2) 27 - 12 = 15

3) 25 - 11 = 14

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 15 + 2 = 17. Scores are 17, 15, 14, 12, 12, 11

With racial modifiers: ST 14 DX 15 CO 14 IN 17 WI 12 CH 12

4th level DX +1 and IN +1
8th level Feat

Human Paladin

1) Rolled 16, 14, 8

2) 27 - 16 = 11

3) 25 - 14 = 11

4) 23 - 8 = 15

5) 15 + 2 = 17 Scores are 17, 16, 14, 11, 11, 8

With racial modifiers: ST 18 DX 12 CO 15 IN 9 WI 12 CH 17

4th level CO +1 CH +1
8th level Feat

Variant Human: ST 18 DX 11 CO 14 IN 8 WI 12 CH 16

Variant Human Feat of choice
level 4 CH +2
level 8 Feat

You inherently have 3 odd numbers to start. That makes the secondary +1 racial modifier matter. Also provides interesting choices on ability score increase levels. +2 to one score, +1 to two scores, a feat , and a weaker feat with +1 ability score increase all have equal juicy value.

[Sigreid]

Shameless plug, perfect opportunity to restate the 27-25-23 method I like. It's a combination of dice rolling and point buy. Learned it for 3E, adapted to 5E:

1) Roll 4d6b3 three times for your first three scores. Minimum of any roll is 7.

2) Take one score and subtract it from 27. This is your fourth score. Cannot go above 18, so no 27 - 7 for a 20.

3) Take another rolled score and subtract it from 25 for your fifth score. Note that 25 - 7 = 18.

4) The last rolled score is subtracted from 23 for your sixth score.

5) Add +2 to any one score. Cannot go above 18.

6) Arrange as desired and apply racial modifiers.

Since officially a 5E RAW dice rolling character could be lucky enough to have a 20 at 1st level that could happen here. However, I can appreciate that even indulging an 18, a 20 at 1st level can be just too much to accept. Combine steps 5 & 6 such that the +2 and racial modifier cannot together give a score higher than 18 but can be combined otherwise.

This method mitigates luck. If you roll high you have low scores. If you roll low you have high scores. Set minuends frames everyone scores into the same range.

Example: Wanting to play a dragonborn wizard.

1) Rolled 12, 12, 11

2) 27 - 12 = 15

3) 25 - 11 = 14

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 15 + 2 = 17. Scores are 17, 15, 14, 12, 12, 11

With racial modifiers: ST 14 DX 15 CO 14 IN 17 WI 12 CH 12

4th level DX +1 and IN +1
8th level Feat

Human Paladin

1) Rolled 16, 14, 8

2) 27 - 16 = 11

3) 25 - 14 = 11

4) 23 - 8 = 15

5) 15 + 2 = 17 Scores are 17, 16, 14, 11, 11, 8

With racial modifiers: ST 18 DX 12 CO 15 IN 9 WI 12 CH 17

4th level CO +1 CH +1
8th level Feat

Variant Human: ST 18 DX 11 CO 14 IN 8 WI 12 CH 16

Variant Human Feat of choice
level 4 CH +2
level 8 Feat

You inherently have 3 odd numbers to start. That makes the secondary +1 racial modifier matter. Also provides interesting choices on ability score increase levels. +2 to one score, +1 to two scores, a feat , and a weaker feat with +1 ability score increase all have equal juicy value.

In your example for the dragonborne wizard couldn't you have chosen to subtract the 11 from the 27 to start with a 16?

[Zalabim]

In your example for the dragonborne wizard couldn't you have chosen to subtract the 11 from the 27 to start with a 16?

Then add 2 to get 18. Yes.

Here's the rub, for me. With point buy, the best wizard race has +3 int bonus and the worst wizard race has +2 int bonus. With rolling, the best wizard race has +2 to +5 int bonus and the worst wizard race has +1 to +4 int bonus. So you don't roll good enough stats and you say today is not the day to play that dragonborn wizard, just like 2e. The default stat roll doesn't appear to accomplish the suggested goal.

If you're in a 6 PC game, there's a 44.4% chance for one PC to have a highest stat of 18. There's a 36% chance for one PC to have a highest stat of 13. There's a 16% chance they're in the same game.

15, 13, 17, 14, 14, 16,
18, 16, 17, 17, 15, 18,
16, 16, 17, 17, 14, 15,
16, 14, 16, 15, 17, 17,
14, 17, 15, 18, 15, 15,
16, 12, 16, 12, 15, 18

That's just the first set of 36 (6 by 6). In every one of them, there's a roll that wouldn't qualify for Pex's dragonborn wizard, and would have a larger gap than in point buy. In some of them, there's a large enough gap for the dragonborn wizard to have the higher bonus than the optimal race wizard. No hard feelings, right?

In other news, Halfling (stout) barbarian and Dwarf (hill) monk both get ability bonuses to two of their class's important stats. They deal less damage, but they're not awful. The Halfling can ride a smaller mount for more maneuverability or slip between medium sized creatures and still use a Lance to have a d12 weapon. Feel free to call him Tripod the Barbarian, but do not suggest that he's compensating for anything.

The Dwarf is worse off, but has a bit more HP than other monks. Ok, maybe they are awful.

[mgshamster]

Then add 2 to get 18. Yes.

Clarification question: Are the rolls in order? For example, is Roll 1 subtracted from 27 and Roll 2 subtracted from 25 and Roll 3 subtracted from 23?

Or do you have a pool of three rolls from which you can subtract any from 27, 25, and 23?

[Pex]

In your example for the dragonborne wizard couldn't you have chosen to subtract the 11 from the 27 to start with a 16?

Yes but personal bias. I'd have to do 25 - 12 = 13 and 23 - 12 = 11. I have no 14 to put in CO since I want a good DX for the AC. If I put my second good score in CO I don't have a high score in DX. The way I have it I get both and still a high IN. That's the min/maxer in me. :smallbiggrin:


Clarification question: Are the rolls in order? For example, is Roll 1 subtracted from 27 and Roll 2 subtracted from 25 and Roll 3 subtracted from 23?

Or do you have a pool of three rolls from which you can subtract any from 27, 25, and 23?

You choose any score to subtract from 27, then of the remaining two from 25 and the last from 23.

[Centik]

My group's ideology on this particular topic is thus:

"Dude, are you seriously asking if you have to roll? LOL, why the hell would I care? You do you man, but don't bring a 'farmer' to the table." End scene

[Jakinbandw]

I always thought that there could be a fun activity for rolled stats.

Each player rolls 1 stat using whatever method that the DM chooses. The DM rolls any to make up the differance (though if there are only three players, each could roll twice, ect). This is the array that each player has to work with. This gives the randomness of rolling stats, while at the same time making sure that no player is straight up stronger than another player because of bad rolls.

[Knaight]

Racial stat bonuses aren't really a good mix with point buy. Instead there should be stat minimums you have to meet to play a certain race for characters created using point buy, with bonuses only for rolled characters.

This seems sloppy - the stat minimums creates an issue where no species can ever be worse than a certain amount at something they're good at. If the idea is to change the system from a bonus or penalty to a change in costs, something like a multiplier on point cost for a particular attribute can work, both for bonuses and penalties. Elves aregenerally dextrous, they can buy dexterity as if each point was for an attribute 1 lower than it is, dragonborn aren't generally intelligent, they buy intelligence as if each point as for an attribute 1 higher than it is.

[Elbeyon]

This seems sloppy - the stat minimums creates an issue where no species can ever be worse than a certain amount at something they're good at. If the idea is to change the system from a bonus or penalty to a change in costs, something like a multiplier on point cost for a particular attribute can work, both for bonuses and penalties. Elves aregenerally dextrous, they can buy dexterity as if each point was for an attribute 1 lower than it is, dragonborn aren't generally intelligent, they buy intelligence as if each point as for an attribute 1 higher than it is.Depends on how high the stat requirement is set. If a race has a +2 to a stat, and the lowest a point buy can go is 8 than setting a min requirement of 10 would make sense. Requiring a 10 in a stat to play a race doesn't seem so sloppy. Just add the races stat mod onto the lowest possible score, and a reasonable min is created.

[JoeJ]

This seems sloppy - the stat minimums creates an issue where no species can ever be worse than a certain amount at something they're good at.

Why is that an issue?


If the idea is to change the system from a bonus or penalty to a change in costs, something like a multiplier on point cost for a particular attribute can work, both for bonuses and penalties. Elves aregenerally dextrous, they can buy dexterity as if each point was for an attribute 1 lower than it is, dragonborn aren't generally intelligent, they buy intelligence as if each point as for an attribute 1 higher than it is.

If you're going to get that complex, you might as well go all the way and let players buy abilities individually instead of bundling them into classes. (Which is actually a good idea, except that the game would no longer resemble D&D.)

[mgshamster]

Why is that an issue?



If you're going to get that complex, you might as well go all the way and let players buy abilities individually instead of bundling them into classes. (Which is actually a good idea, except that the game would no longer resemble D&D.)

Reminds me of 2e's Skills & Powers book. You could purchase individual class features and even pick up features from other classes in order to customize your character.

[Knaight]

Why is that an issue?

In this case, it's because you're solving a problem where a PC can't have a particular stat by introuding a problem where a PC can't have a particular stat. There's no progress made.

[JoeJ]

In this case, it's because you're solving a problem where a PC can't have a particular stat by introuding a problem where a PC can't have a particular stat. There's no progress made.

Except that it would be "no normal adult of race X is that weak (clumsy, stupid, whatever)" instead of "plenty of normal adults of X race are that strong (dexterous, smart, whatever), but you can't be until you go on a bunch of adventures."

Also, how many players are thinking, "I'd really like to play X, if only I didn't have to be so competent?"

[Coffee_Dragon]

I agree with Knaight: if the snowflake philosophy is the reason for working around the maximums in RAW point buy, there's no reason to respect the minimums.

[JoeJ]

I agree with Knaight: if the snowflake philosophy is the reason for working around the maximums in RAW point buy, there's no reason to respect the minimums.

I'd be fine with having both racial minimums and maximums that are actually maximums, not just maximums at 1st level. So, for example, if you're race X your Strength can't be lower than 9 and your Charisma can't go higher than 18. I'd also be okay with racial level limits in certain classes.

[EvilAnagram]

There's a major problem with OP's arguments: Not one of them is a valid argument. It reflects a general failure in many communities to take arguing seriously, a failure to look at things honestly and genuinely attempt to assess the value of an argument. In the interest of elevating the discussion, let's look critically at OP's arguments.


"5E isn't meant for rolled stats"
Oh I'm sorry, random person on the internet, it was silly of me to not realize that you know absolutely everything about the game's creation and what was and wasn't meant to be used. Oh wait-you don't.
You start out with a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). People are claiming that 5e isn't meant for rolled stats, so you claim that they think they know absolutely everything about every decision made in writing 5e. Those are clearly not the same claim. Everyone knows they are not the same claim. The claims are entirely dissimilar, and pretending that they are the same claim is intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty, by the way, is a recurring theme in the OP.


Even the book lists it as the default.
The books do not list it as the default. The default is the Standard Array. It's the basis of all the early examples they use in the first chapter. Even the point buy system is a variation of the standard array. It's the standard.

More importantly, being default is not an argument for being the best.


"It breaks bounded accuracy and the game's balance"
Well then it's the DM's fault. It's up to the DM to balance encounters to provide a suitable challenge to the party. If an encounter is unbalanced, the DM is to blame. If characters have insanely high or low stats, then the DM should adjust encounters accordingly.
The argument you're attempting to counter is that rolling stats creates a structural problem in that unbalances the party, especially early in the game. The way you're countering it is that the DM should perform extra work to make up for this imbalance. This is not a real counterargument. You are essentially saying that the problems are totally real, but the DM should make up for it.


And for bounded accuracy, is 10-20% to hit really that much?
The difference between your best possible outcome and worst possible outcome with rolled stats is a 45% chance to hit. Beyond that, many people believe that the difference between a 16 and an 18 in your main stat is sizeable, and your argument glib comment does nothing to refute that.



If someone does have higher stats, it's usually by a relatively small amount, and if you rolled ridiculously low your DM would probably let you re-roll or have a backup.
As Zalabim said, there's a 1/6 chance that someone with amazing stats will be at the same table as someone with terrible stats, and there is no guarantee that DMs will allow people to reroll. Once again, you're attempting to paper over the structural weaknesses that you admit exist by saying, "Hopefully your DM is good."


And Class features alone mean that everyone will have their niche to fit into to and be useful, unless you build a character exactly the same as another but with different stats, which in itself is a dumb idea.
If you roll terrible stats, you won't be as good in your niche as someone else will be in theirs. If other people are good at their roles, but you are bad at yours, that creates party imbalance. Pretending that stats don't affect outcomes doesn't make it true.


D&D is random anyway
Rolling is the embodiment of what Dungeons and Dragons is. A majority-if not all-of in game interactions are left up to the luck of the die. They either bless you, or curse you. So why shouldn't we roll for this?
A majority of in-game interactions are specifically not left to the die. The mechanics of the game are designed to empower the players to alter the probability of successful die rolls through skill bonuses, proficiency, advantage, and a slew of specific abilities such as Bardic Inspiration, Portent, Luck, Lucky, Precise Attack, and others. The game's mechanics are about altering probabilities, not surrendering to them, and acting as though the central mechanics of the game leave everything to chance is, again, intellectually dishonest.


It adds a fun layer of unpredictability
As much as you may love it, the Point Buy system is boring. Everyone ends up with very similar stats, and race choice is purely based on optimization rather than flavour. The standard array is even MORE boring. I flat out refuse to play in a game in which Standard Array is the only option, because everyone will have EXACTLY THE SAME stats. With rolling, that isn't the case. You could get a well rounded character or a SAD one. It's all up to luck.
If you have more fun creating a character than playing the game, more power to you.

But people won't have exactly the same stats. Their numbers will be in different places. Again, you're aiming for effect over substance.


It adds more opportunities for character creation
With point buy, you're forced to pick a race based on features and optimization. Also, multi-classing is limited, because you will never have good enough stats to play a Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer or some other crazy combination. With rolling, it's more open. You can have that Half-Orc Wizard you've always dreamed of, or that Gnome Barbarian that you were thinking about that other day. Your Oathbreaker can also be a member of the clergy and of a monastic order, and that rogue can smite. The possibilities are endless. With point buy, not so much.
This is the one valid point OP makes.


But honestly, people saying rolling is dumb isn't what irks me. It's because the threads that I have seen have been pushing their opinions on to others as if it were fact. My table can do what we want, your table can do what you want. Bottom line is, this game is to have fun. It isn't competitive. Just do what you find the most fun, and let others do the same.
Your table can do what it wants, but there are major structural problems with rolling stats, and you have not addressed them in an honest way.

And that's what irks me: you have not made an attempt at genuine discussion and debate. Your arguments are not genuine assessments of your detractors' points, and if you do not attempt to genuinely address your opposite, you are not engaging in a meaningful debate. You're just more noise.

[JoeJ]

The books do not list it as the default. The default is the Standard Array. It's the basis of all the early examples they use in the first chapter. Even the point buy system is a variation of the standard array. It's the standard.

This, at least, is not correct. RAW says straight out that you generate ability scores randomly, by rolling 4d6d1. If you don't want to roll, you may use the array 15-14-13-12-10-8. Rolling is the default, with the array as an allowed option. Point buy is a variant rule that may or may not be available, at the DM's option.

[EvilAnagram]

This, at least, is not correct. RAW says straight out that you generate ability scores randomly, by rolling 4d6d1. If you don't want to roll, you may use the array 15-14-13-12-10-8. Rolling is the default, with the array as an allowed option. Point buy is a variant rule that may or may not be available, at the DM's option.

That's true, but all examples use the standard array, which presents it as the standard option.

You make a good point, though.

[MBControl]

I'm pro rolling stats.

First of all, we have a group of honest players, that embrace true weakness the same as great strengths. We're not boring min/max players, we're role players.

Second of all, our DM will balance rolls. Anytime there is a lot of high or low rolls, we'll re-roll to balance. This happens VERY rarely.

PC's should die. If there is no risk of dying, then there are no stakes. No stakes is boring. On the flip side, some PC's can be stronger than normal.

Every PC will have weaknesses. Based on class types and racial choices, there will be features to exploit.

As long as your not playing out of the book, without adaptation, the DM does have the option to balance encounters.

Also, no matter how strong a PC rolls, bad decisions in game play causes more PC deaths, than unbalanced stats.

Lastly, if 5e wasn't intended to use with random rolls, they simply wouldn't have included it in the PHB.

[Knaight]

PC's should die. If there is no risk of dying, then there are no stakes. No stakes is boring. On the flip side, some PC's can be stronger than normal.

Nonsense. Just about every story has a conflict in it, and that is absolutely dependant on there being stakes that the audience cares about. While risk of death can be a really easy way to make this happen (especially in RPGs, where the audience are also participants and it's their stuff at risk), it's far from the only method. See: Every story in every genre in which character death is not the central stakes.

[Pex]

I'm pro rolling stats.

First of all, we have a group of honest players, that embrace true weakness the same as great strengths. We're not boring min/max players, we're role players.

Please do not bring Stormwind Fallacy into this even if we're on the same side of this particular discussion.


Second of all, our DM will balance rolls. Anytime there is a lot of high or low rolls, we'll re-roll to balance. This happens VERY rarely.

PC's should die. If there is no risk of dying, then there are no stakes. No stakes is boring. On the flip side, some PC's can be stronger than normal.

No, not "should". "Can" yes, not "should". It is not the DM's job to kill PCs. The game is not being played wrong if no PC dies. Risk of dying is not the only thing that drives the game. Risk of failure of the mission of the adventure is as much if not more than character death as what drives a game forward for interesting play.


Every PC will have weaknesses. Based on class types and racial choices, there will be features to exploit.

As long as your not playing out of the book, without adaptation, the DM does have the option to balance encounters.

Also, no matter how strong a PC rolls, bad decisions in game play causes more PC deaths, than unbalanced stats.

Yes. Not all character weaknesses need to be reflected by having an 8 or two in ability scores. Nothing wrong with having an 8, just not a requirement.

[Knaight]

This argument isn't against Point Buy. Its against the uselessness of some Attributes, like Strength, Intelligence or Charisma for characters where they aren't integral to their class or skill types. If every Attribute was equal for all classes in terms of applicability, then Point Buy would still be the superior system. Grabbing stats from the air just because your whole party does it isn't smart game design... just like your assumption that everyone should have Str 8, everyone who got to pick stats would eventually have 18's across the board.

So on the one hand, we have theory crafting about why people wouldn't pick all 18s, backed up by a group which has given it at least 15 years to hit that point without seeing it happen. On the other, we have theory crafting about everyone eventually hitting 18s, without the rationale even given. Which to believe?

I'm thinking it's that the all 18s generally doesn't happen. It's like people play characters they're interested in, and the archetype of the generalist who's as good as a bunch of specialists just doesn't come up much.

[djreynolds]

Does it matter?

What matters is the PCs feel viable. They need to feel they are important to the party.

The array or buy just keeps everyone equal.

But dice are still random, even with 5d6 you can still end up with a 3.

If your PCs do not "feel" powerful, change up the array make it 1 for 1 for point buy. Or just give everyone an 18 in their choice of stats.

Then we can all get back to playing and adventuring.

[KorvinStarmast]

But dice are still random, even with 5d6 you can still end up with a 3.
No, you can't, but you can end up with a 5. :smallbiggrin: