Alternate Ability score generation

[BladeWing81]

I usually ask my Players to use the variant Customizing Ability score method (I call it the point buy Method). but some friends want to use the normal 4d6 method, although it can be fast and effective I fear for the poor guy that gets all 3s on an ability roll so I thought this up:

Roll 3d6 remove the lowest one and add +6. it's a simple fix from me so that the lowest possible number becomes 8 (-1) which I think is fair for everyone.
Would this still be fair to just give a +6 on a dice roll and the rest go as the may?

Edit: My mistake, it's meant to be 3d6 remove the lowest and add +6

[Fighting_Ferret]

You are only allowing them to get a 14 max using your proposed method.

[Temperjoke]

Yeah, as mentioned, you're going to end up giving them a lower over-all average to cover an issue that might not be an issue. Why not give them an extra 4D6 stat roll they can use to substitute for a bad score, if it's something you're really worried about? That way, they could drop their worst score, but it still gives them the potential of other good rolls.

[BladeWing81]

You are only allowing them to get a 14 max using your proposed method.

Actually no, maybe I didn't explain myself the Max is 18. 3d6 remove the lowest add +6 and you get the similar number as you would for 4d6 remove the lowest one. the min becomes 8 and the max is still 18.

[Anonymouswizard]

I usually ask my Players to use the variant Customizing Ability score method (I call it the point buy Method). but some friends want to use the normal 4d6 method, although it can be fast and effective I fear for the poor guy that gets all 3s on an ability roll so I thought this up:

Roll 3d4 remove the lowest one and add +6. it's a simple fix from me so that the lowest possible number becomes 8 (-1) which I think is fair for everyone.
Would this still be fair to just give a +6 on a dice roll and the rest go as the may?

The chance of rolling all 3s is minimal, to the point where rolling a 3 is rare enough that I've known some people to rule it as a 19 (as you have a (1/6)^4=1/1296 chance of getting a 3 on a 4d6bs roll, which I think ends up with it being an approximately one in five quintillion [rounding to one significant figure, using short billions] chance of getting all 3s, although my probability maths is a bit rusty). In addition you can add in some safeguards such as 'if you have no score of 14 or higher you may reroll' that makes it impossible to have a truly bad character.

As a side note, I have recently been really annoyed at a GM as they refused to just let me roll 4d6b3, instead having me roll 8d20, reolling every dice until it was 8+, and then propping the lowest 2. This has resulted in a wild variance in power within the party (I have the most reasonable array, although it would be a really good one on 4d6b3 I've rolled similar once or twice) and making me abandon a really nice set of rolls I had from 4d6b3 (8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18). Sure, my new set is higher, but that just means my bookish monk can suddenly use her quarterstaff, not that it's a better set.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Actually no, maybe I didn't explain myself the Max is 18. 3d6 remove the lowest add +6 and you get the similar number as you would for 4d6 remove the lowest one. the min becomes 8 and the max is still 18.

Ah, you typed 3d4 in the OP. Would I be correct in thinking this is a mistake, and 3d6 drop lowest +6 was the intention?

If that's the case, I think that winds up a bit too high: the mode result is a fifteen. Might I suggest either 2d6+6 or 3d4+6 as alternatives?

[BladeWing81]

Ah, you typed 3d4 in the OP. Would I be correct in thinking this is a mistake, and 3d6 drop lowest +6 was the intention?

If that's the case, I think that winds up a bit too high: the mode result is a fifteen. Might I suggest either 2d6+6 or 3d4+6 as alternatives?

I've tested it out myself and yeah you're right it does give out some pretty high scores, then 2d6 +6 seems a bit more fair and still gets you some nice stats and worse ones are not that bad but still can happen

[BW022]

I fear for the poor guy that gets all 3s on an ability roll so...

The key problem with rolling is fairness.

Balance (everyone too high or low) isn't that much of an issue since the DM always has the ability to scale encounters. If the party has top scores of 13 and 14, you put in less goblins in an encounter, give a few scrolls as treasure, or give them some side quests to gain XP and come back when they are higher level. If the party has top scores of 17 and 18, you put in more goblins, extra traps, give the bad guys some scrolls, etc.

Fairness can't easily be solved. If one character's top scores are 13 and 14, and another is 17 and 18... that character will quickly outpace the other character. Hit more often, save more often, more successful with skills, etc. Over a one year campaign... that character will be obviously better than the rest. Players will likely eventually resent it and you'll be hard pressed to balanced encounters where one character isn't bored and the other player slaughtered.

If you must roll... there are a few ways to make this fair...

* Have each player roll one or two stats until you have six abilities and everyone selects from the same array of rolls (ordered in whatever order they wish).
* Have each player roll, take the highest set of rolls, convert them to point buy, and give the players the option of point-buy with that number or keep their rolls.
* Make up a bunch of point-buy arrays and have the players roll randomly for which array they are going to take.
* Each player rolls up four abilities. Convert to a point-buy and allow them to point-buy the remaining two ability scores.
* Each player rolls the ability scores and converts each into a point-buy. Take the difference between the highest and the lowest and convert this into an XP bonus (50xp per point, and 1% gained). If you are 5 points behind the top player with XP, you start with 250xp and 5% bonus to XP gained.