Rolling stats - 6d20?

[Oramac]

Just a thought. Anyone see anything specifically wrong with it? Possibly with the stipulation of rerolling anything lower than a 4.

Obviously, there's a much larger range of scores available, but it could also make for some fun stats to RP too.

[Democratus]

So long as you have player buy-in, anything goes.

[Naanomi]

I did that once in a 2e game and got a 20 charisma bard

[JumboWheat01]

Well it could be quite a powerful character, starting off with a couple of 20s in a game where 20 is the max stat, but you are leaving a bit more up to chance with it, so I suppose it's fair enough.

Really, it's up to your DM how you get the scores, so if they say "Sure, go for it," then by all means, go for it. I, personally, will stick with the Standard Array. Safer that way.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Down with bell curves!

[Renewal]

The only real issue is for 19s and 20s, which could break the standard cap with racial modifiers applied. Beyond that, you're only dealing with the swingier variation of a d20 compared to 4d6 drop 1 or even 3d6, and that's just a question of player preference and GM ability to deal with swingier stats.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The issue isn't the 19s and 20s; it's the 5s and 6s. I'm particular it's having both in a single party. 5e is frankly way too dependant on ability scores for me to feel comfortable with a method like this. Maybe d12+6 would be better? Still quite random, but won't leave you so far outside the normal range.

[coredump]

I am a fan of rolling for stats...but I still think this is a bad idea.

Really low stats are no fun, especially if you have multiples. Really high stats can help break the game, especially if you have multiples. This method kind of guarantees both.

Plus there is a problem with one guy rolling really bad, and one guy rolling really well....and this method makes that much more likely.

OTOH, if the players like this kind of large variance, and are willing to play this way.... I say go for it and see how it works out.



Before you do, I would roll 5-10 PCs, and see how many of those would be problematic to play.

[Jarlhen]

Rolling stats has two negatives. Extremely high and extremely low numbers. It happens all the time. If you replace the standard 4d6 keep the 3 highest with 1d20 this problem is going to become EXTREME. I don't know your table obviously, but I'd be willing to bet money that beyond that one person who genuinely does not care, no one is going to enjoy having their highest stat be 10. And if you're expected to play a character for months and years, you simply cannot let someone like that into the game. They won't be happy and that'll lead to a worse experience for everyone.

[MaxWilson]

I like variance, but to me this approach of abandoning the bell curve cheapens the results. A 6 Str will no longer be interesting, and neither will an 18, because they're both exactly as likely as a 10.

If I roll a character with 6, 7, 9, 4, 7, 4 I want to have earned it honestly, not because someone was using a linear stat-creation method.

Up with bell curves!

[mgshamster]

Let's see...

I just rolled up a couple of ability score sets to simulate it using WotC's dice roller web app. Let's see what our characters are:

1) 18, 1 (reroll: 15), 12, 15, 18, 17

2) 17, 18, 3 (reroll: 3, 2, 2, 14), 10, 17, 12

3) 12, 10, 5, 12, 12, 10

4) 13, 4, 3 (reroll: 4), 14, 4, 6

I just used the rolls I got, and I did not alter, fudge, or make-up any of these.

Character 1 is going to be awesome. Character 2 will be mostly awesome. Character 3 will be average with a significant flaw. Character 4 is going to be the most challenging character I'll ever play and probably won't survive long.

Which character would you want? Do you really want to be stuck with guy #4, or even rely on that guy as a team member?

You're basically playing "two heroes, the squire, and the comedy relief" in this game. It can be fun for a few sessions, but as a long term campaign it's going to suck.

This is why rolling for stats can be bad. People want to roll because of the chance of getting some really good stats, but it's rare to find someone willing to play the crappy stats as well (much less want to play with someone else who got crappy stats). If you like rolling, find a way to get closer to an average by increasing the number of dice (3d6 or some other method).

If you just want high stats, then don't bother rolling; just pick the stats you want and play that character. If everyone wants to play the "all 20s" character, then that's what everyone wants to play and you'll all have fun. No need to hope for the elusive lucky roll, no worrying about getting crappy rolls, just pick your stats and enjoy.

If everyone wants to risk the low stat character and everyone is ok with that character as a team mate, then go ahead and roll. Otherwise, why bother?

[Misterwhisper]

So the plan is that in a game where stats only naturally go from 10 to 15 you want to much harder to actually achieve point buy level stats.

You have a 50% chance to roll stats that are lower than anything you could buy but only a 25% chance to have a stat higher than you could buy.

You are almost guaranteed to get a worse spread of stats than you could buy, also you have a 25% chance to roll to get a stat that makes you borderline unplayable.

This is a horrible way to roll stats, just from a mathematic point of view, it is even worse when you take into account the bound accuracy idea of 5th edition that this would throw right out the window.

[JellyPooga]

Just...no.

Compare 3d6 to 1d20;

Odds of getting 18 on 3d6 = 1:216
Odds of getting 18+ on 1d20 = 3:20 (somewhere between 1:6 and 1:7)

That's not even a little bit close. The bell curve of 3d6 (or 4d6b3 or any similar method) ensures that most stats will be around the median, with a rare few extremely high or low, making those high/low stats somewhat more significant for their rarity. Taking away the rarity of those scores lessens the impact and (for me at least) a lot of the fun of rolling stats in the first place.

[Sigreid]

I think you should give it a go and not worry what strangers on the Internet think.

[Naanomi]

The struggle is often not what to do with high scores but what to do with very low scores; especially if players are not placing those stats. 1 CON is a death-sentence for almost any character... 1 STR better have good stats for a Monk or they won't be able to reliably carry even componant pouches... Similar problems ensue

[Joe the Rat]

I appreciate the desire for more extremes, but flat probabilities frighten me. That sort of insane variability is more in line with Dungeon Crawl Classics, where you account for random roll odds and colossally bad characters by starting with more of them, and letting Darwin (or Grimtooth) sort them out. That one might be worth trying with 1d16+2, in order.

A little bit of a central tendency will cut down on the likelihood of low end insanity. 2d8+3 gives you a 5-19 range (-3 to +4, with room to improve), and keeps the same average as 4-20 (12). Your tanked score odds are down from 1/20 to 1/64, with a similar trim on the top end.

[MaxWilson]

The struggle is often not what to do with high scores but what to do with very low scores; especially if players are not placing those stats. 1 CON is a death-sentence for almost any character... 1 STR better have good stats for a Monk or they won't be able to reliably carry even componant pouches... Similar problems ensue

A character with 3s in all stats would make an interesting challenge. Obviously you could make a moon druid or a necromancer (he'd actually be less intelligent than his own skeletons, on par with his own zombies) and have a fun time. I have a hard time seeing any other classes that would be fun with those stats though. Maybe a cleric of some sort? At least his Int would fit in with the other clerics... (Yes, my disdain for clerics is showing.) Beastmaster has potential too.

[Tallis]

So the plan is that in a game where stats only naturally go from 10 to 15 you want to much harder to actually achieve point buy level stats.
I'm curious what game you're referring to here? Because 3d6 naturally ranges from 3 to 18 and the standard array includes an 8.

Even though I do prefer rolling for ability scores (4d6b3 place as you like is my preferred method) I don't think I would like the swinginess of this for an ongoing game. For a one shot or short term game it could be fun.

[Christian]

The struggle is often not what to do with high scores but what to do with very low scores; especially if players are not placing those stats. 1 CON is a death-sentence for almost any character... 1 STR better have good stats for a Monk or they won't be able to reliably carry even componant pouches... Similar problems ensue
It's remarkably easy to deal with, actually. Got a couple of 4's? Put 'em in Dex and Con and make a wizard. His AC 7 will be nearly impossible to miss, and 6 points of damage in one hit takes him from uninjured to dead without any of those pesky death saves to worry about. Betcha roll better with the next character! You're hardly out anything, as long as you didn't spend a lot of time crafting an elaborate backstory or anything.

It's the same principle as enlisting in the Scout service in the original Traveller game. Rolled crap stats? See if you can get your character killed before you even finish character creation. :smallcool:

[Vogonjeltz]

Just a thought. Anyone see anything specifically wrong with it? Possibly with the stipulation of rerolling anything lower than a 4.

Obviously, there's a much larger range of scores available, but it could also make for some fun stats to RP too.

Same average as 3d6 (10.5), different range (3d6 precludes lower than 3, higher than 18), and Substantially different modes (3 outcomes for a 4, vs 1 on the d20 roll).

By having a re-rolling stipulation you eliminate the one advantage the d20 roll might have, it only take a single roll of a single die.

So, I'd prefer to skip it as a player (and a DM) and stick with the d6s.

[Gastronomie]

So guys, let's actually do it.Roll(6d20)+0:
17,2,6,13,1,17,+0
Total:56

Roll(6d20)+0:
3,19,14,3,20,11,+0
Total:70

Roll(6d20)+0:
3,14,6,10,15,16,+0
Total:64

Roll(6d20)+0:
19,1,12,16,5,17,+0
Total:70Rolled up four characters. One character has 17, 17, 13, 6, 2, 1, while another has 20, 19, 14, 11, 3, 3. The third has 16, 15, 14, 10, 6, 3, and the last one has 19, 17, 16, 12, 5, 1.

Let's say the first one is a Shadow Sorcerer girl who has had her mind scrambled and her body severely weakened in the magical disaster in which she nearly died (and also gained her powers). She has 1 STR, 13 DEX, 17 CON, 2 INT, 6 WIS, and 17 CHA. Make her a half-elf and she has 14 DEX, 18 CON and 19 CHA. She's super smexy and attractive, but she can't lift anything (she instead uses Mage Hand to work stuff out), and she has almost no memory of what she was like before gaining these powers. She isn't really that wise either, being a small child.

The second is a Berserker Barbarian who has a tremendous muscular body, but is wrecked by insanity and has a hideous face full of scars and burns (thus he wears a mask to cover his face). He has 20 STR, 14 DEX, 19 CON, 11 INT, 3 WIS, and 3 CHA. Add the bonuses of being Variant Human (15 DEX, 20 CON). His fists crush boulders, and he doesn't care how many arrows thud into his manly chest, but he is without doubt insane, and almost everyone will scream by just taking a look at his face.

The third is a Wood Elf Death Cleric. He has 10 STR, 16 DEX, 16 CON, 3 INT, 16 WIS, and 6 CHA. He has been raised up in a mind-controlling cult, and lacks proper education, as well as crucial communication skills.

The fourth character is an old-aged Drow Rogue/Assassin who has a terminal disease that is slowly eating at his mind and body. He has 3 STR, 18 DEX, 10 CON, 14 INT, 6 WIS, and 16 CHA. He's the boss of a particular branch of an underground organization.

The old Assassin knows he is going to die soon. The Death Cleric is an orphan he has adopted from the cult which he crushed several years ago, considering him a potential ally, a golden egg. He's still learning the basics of math, but he'll soon be good enough - and once he's completed education, he will perhaps be a sucessor, or at least a major member of the organization.
Apart from that, the Shadow Sorcerer girl is the assassin's granddaughter, and loving her, he wishes she stay alive. The girl doesn't know the assassin is her grandfather, though. The assassin wants her to stay away from the dark side of the society, but somehow, the girl winds up in dire situations all the time - and the assassin has to go save her.
Meanwhile, the Berserker Barbarian - his family slaughtered, his homelands gone - knew no love for years, fueled by hatred and vengeance, but upon meeting the girl (the only person in ages who didn't consider him a frightening monster), he changes. The Berserker now has another motivation of life, which is to protect the girl, the only person in the world he can now care for, from harm.

Okay, actually I am starting to think this method could be pretty fun. At least on paper.

You could of course give it a limit, though - "all scores lower than 6 become 6, and all scores higher than 18 become 18" would be sufficient IMO.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I like variance, but to me this approach of abandoning the bell curve cheapens the results. A 6 Str will no longer be interesting, and neither will an 18, because they're both exactly as likely as a 10.

If I roll a character with 6, 7, 9, 4, 7, 4 I want to have earned it honestly, not because someone was using a linear stat-creation method.

Up with bell curves!

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop using the "Sarcasm" font!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Okay, actually I am starting to think this method could be pretty fun. At least on paper.
I think you've put your finger on a strong tend, though: dump stats. 5e is really bad about dump stats. Did you notice that everyone wound up with crippling mental deficiencies? I would not be surprised to see an entire party with animal-level intelligence, for instance.

[R.Shackleford]

Just a thought. Anyone see anything specifically wrong with it? Possibly with the stipulation of rerolling anything lower than a 4.

Obviously, there's a much larger range of scores available, but it could also make for some fun stats to RP too.

There is a misconception that Random Stats = Role-playing.

Just because you randomly get specific stats doesn't mean you will or will not role play that character in such a way. Gaining a 20 in Strength can be role played the same way as having a 12 in strength, the only difference is the mechanical aspect of your character. And even then, 12 + Athletics Prof will be roughly the same as a 20 + No Athletics Prof.

If you want role-playing then you need to look away from the scores. Mechanical aspects of the game don't really lead to roleplaying.

Grog the Half-Orc "Wizard" (he is actually an illiterate barbarian) can be role played as a wizard even if all their class mechanics comes from Barbarian.

Edit

Grog is axe dancer wizard, not puny elven blade dancer. Grog's ability to use True Strike Cantrip is unpara...unpallell... Un matched by other wizards.

[Gastronomie]

I think you've put your finger on a strong tend, though: dump stats. 5e is really bad about dump stats. Did you notice that everyone wound up with crippling mental deficiencies? I would not be surprised to see an entire party with animal-level intelligence, for instance.It may have to do with how when I think up characters, a majority of them are mentally unstable and perhaps insane from the start.

It probably is unsuited for people who want characters who didn't walk out of the dark fantasy genre.

[eastmabl]

Look at the posts on these boards about how 5e is too swingy because the d20 rolls matters more than your bonus.

Now you want to generate stats based upon the swingiest die of all?

I would suggest avoiding this. YMMV.

[R.Shackleford]

I think you've put your finger on a strong tend, though: dump stats. 5e is really bad about dump stats. Did you notice that everyone wound up with crippling mental deficiencies? I would not be surprised to see an entire party with animal-level intelligence, for instance.

Crippling Mental Deficiencies? Um no.

10 is average, 8 is slightly below average.

Slightly below average isn't crippling at all. You are making 8 sound like a 3.

Its fun to have an 8 Int character play dumb, Grog (Axe Dancer "Wizard") is dumb not because his 8 Int but because of his background. He didn't pay attention in wizard school and kept drawling lewd stick figures. He has the potential to do well (arcana roll is at a -1) but generally he will suck at it.

But he isn't mentally crippled. He can still critically think, form plans, and do other fun mental stuff. He just isn't all that great at it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Slightly below average isn't crippling at all. You are making 8 sound like a 3.
No, I'm making a 3 sound like a 3. Look at the stats he rolled- 2 int/6 wis is worse than most animals; 3 wis/3 cha is barely more able to grasp and interact with the world them a table.

[N810]

if you want more average random stats, you could have all stats start at 6 and then add a d12 to each... :smallwink:

[R.Shackleford]

No, I'm making a 3 sound like a 3. Look at the stats he rolled- 2 int/6 wis is worse than most animals; 3 wis/3 cha is barely more able to grasp and interact with the world them a table.

My bad, I was reading two different things at once and responded incorrectly to both haha.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If you use the 6d20 method, you'd theoretically have about one person in three with an INT of 7 or lower if the stats were rolled in order. But no, it's 6d20 and put the lowest score in your dump stat, which turns out to be INT for almost everyone in 5E. Suddenly you've got half-wits everywhere!

[R.Shackleford]

If you use the 6d20 method, you'd theoretically have about one person in three with an INT of 7 or lower if the stats were rolled in order. But no, it's 6d20 and put the lowest score in your dump stat, which turns out to be INT for almost everyone in 5E. Suddenly you've got half-wits everywhere!

With how the game is set up, that is exactly the type of character you should play.

[JumboWheat01]

I've never dumped INT on any of my characters. I rather be socially awkward with 8 CHA than just about anything else. Though sometimes my Clerics have 8 DEX.

[Democratus]

The Int stat is purely mechanical for a PC.

A character with a 6 Int can still be played as brilliant in planning, idea generation, riddle solving, etc.

[Pex]

No, I'm making a 3 sound like a 3. Look at the stats he rolled- 2 int/6 wis is worse than most animals; 3 wis/3 cha is barely more able to grasp and interact with the world them a table.

In an experiment such as this it would be better not to put emphasis on what the numbers mean. Roleplay the character "normally" regardless of scores. Let the scores only matter for the math part of the game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In an experiment such as this it would be better not to put emphasis on what the numbers mean. Roleplay the character "normally" regardless of scores. Let the scores only matter for the math part of the game.
Wouldn't it be better to do things the other way around? Give yourself the scores you mechanically need and then ignore them and roleplay to taste?

(or play without abilities at al (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485818-Grod-s-5e-Revisions-Structual)l)

[Hudsonian]

I really like the idea of having a game where there is a decent amount of character deaths and you get to play a whole lot of crazy characters. That would make me WANT a couple of my characters to come out pretty awful. Just troll until that character dies and pick up a new party member in town. Everybody starts at level 3. New characters get bonus xp until they catch up.

[RulesJD]

Yeeeeah you all need to get some knowledge on just what it means to have that low of an ability score. Take having your Int = 1. Let's look to the Feeblemind spell shall we:

"On a failed save, the creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores become 1. The creature can't cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them."

Your character is literally a zombie, too stupid to even speak. You can't use magic items, or likely any class features. You are a glorified pet with better stats. There is no role-playing because you are barely a functioning living creature.

[Theodoxus]

What if instead of a single d20 per stat, you took an average? Rolling 3d20/3 for instance? You'll keep a strong bell curve, but have more variation than 3d6 or 4d6dL.

Just a quick run through on a single concept I got: (38/3)=12; (25/3)=8; (27/3)=9; (29/3)=10; (46/3)=15; (44/3)=15.

Huh, slightly less powerful than point buy... Probably a good method to make lower powered characters than my preferred 1d8+7...

[Hudsonian]

Yeeeeah you all need to get some knowledge on just what it means to have that low of an ability score. Take having your Int = 1.

The OP SPECIFICALLY said reroll everything < 4.

Since 5e does not have negative racial modifiers what you suggest is not possible with this system.

[JakOfAllTirades]

With how the game is set up, that is exactly the type of character you should play.

Should is a rather strong word to use when telling someone else how to game, and exactly the sort of word you shouldn't use. :smallwink:

[JakOfAllTirades]

The Int stat is purely mechanical for a PC.

A character with a 6 Int can still be played as brilliant in planning, idea generation, riddle solving, etc.


Yeah, this! The Barbarian I'm currently playing has an 8 INT, but it seems I just don't have it in my to role-play a dullard.

So I'm not. He's actually as shrewd as any other character I've played, but he never studied (no INT skills) and he doesn't have a very good memory. I'm deliberately not taking notes on anything during game sessions (I usually do) so he's constantly having trouble remembering names, places, what happened three sessions ago, etc. I've found the "no notes, ever" thing is a good way to play a low INT character; it forces me to rely on other PCs for certain things.

[RulesJD]

The OP SPECIFICALLY said reroll everything < 4.

Since 5e does not have negative racial modifiers what you suggest is not possible with this system.

Yes, and MANY OTHERS in the thread completely ignored that. Which is my entire point, that saying "Oh I'll have a stat with a 1 in it" is somehow acceptable. The OP at least moderately tried to ameliorate that, albeit it's still a bad idea.

[Hudsonian]

The OP at least moderately tried to ameliorate that, albeit it's still a bad idea.

Grog, the Barbarian on #CriticalRole is, in my opinion, an extremely well portrayed character with a really low stat.

In the same show Felicia Day played a wizard with a Dex of 6.

There are suggestions in the PHB about rerolling stats that are too low. I feel that all rolled stats should come with the caveat that the DM can look at the numbers and say, "Reroll that one".

[R.Shackleford]

Should is a rather strong word to use when telling someone else how to game, and exactly the sort of word you shouldn't use. :smallwink:

The point is that the game pushes players away from mental skills and away from having mental abilities (outside using it for spells). The game gives no reason for a lot of characters to carry an Intelligence score over 10. Hell, anyone with expertise can put an 8 in Int and then put expertise in arcana and do just as good as a Wizard with a +5 Int... Expertise (Arcana) would be a +11 and the Wizard would have a +11.

The game also pushes players to be murder hobos who jump before thinking... So by should I don't mean you have to, just that is how the game seems to want you to play.

Oh and this isn't just a 5e problem, this has been an issue for pretty much every edition except 4e where secondary and tertiary ability scores mattered a little and could be fun to build around (I really miss Invokers and Wardens).

[RulesJD]

Grog, the Barbarian on #CriticalRole is, in my opinion, an extremely well portrayed character with a really low stat.

In the same show Felicia Day played a wizard with a Dex of 6.

There are suggestions in the PHB about rerolling stats that are too low. I feel that all rolled stats should come with the caveat that the DM can look at the numbers and say, "Reroll that one".

Agreed, but a few glaring caveats.

1. Those are professional actors.

2. They have stats of 6, not 5 and below. In that territory you're approaching the ability equivalent of no longer being a sentient being.

[Draco4472]

Just don't roll six 1's.