Ability Generation

[tedcahill2]

When I started playing D&D (I was about 12) and my DM had us using 4d6 reroll one's use best three dice to determine ability scores. We usually had a 17 or 18 and nearly never had less than a 10.

Now I've been playing with the same group for nearly 20 years and I feel like we're all jaded to what typical ability scores should be at level 1. Many methods of character creation result of much lower scores, typically ranging from 8 to 14.

Do the higher ability scores really make a big difference? I know all about the SAD/MAD classes, but in general, is there a significant shift in the feel of the game if you have stats of 8 to 14 instead of 12 to 18?

[Venger]

Absolutely.

Especially if you're starting at low levels and can't afford to beef up your stats with items, if you only roll 1 good stat, it's hard or impossible to play as lower-tiered classes. it pushes you to play t1s because otherwise, you will probably die.

point-buy is a better solution since it actually puts everyone on equal footing and allows people to build according to their concept instead of discarding it and finding one that matches their stats.

[Gildedragon]

I've actually come to love the pooled "6 4d6b3" system where anyone can copy anyone else's rolls

[heavyfuel]

It makes a huge difference at lower levels. At medium to high levels, there are ways to compensate (though high ability scores are ALWAYS a good thing).

Stronger classes tier-wise don't seem to care about ability scores as much as the weaker classes too.

Overall, I like to give players high scores simply because it makes them happy.

[Godskook]

Depends on what you're measuring.

The game is "balanced" around the Elite Array, random loot and a somewhat ****ty party arrangement. A Troll, CR5, has only 16 AC and +9 Attack. A mediocre PC Fighter, at this level with a 15 starting Str has 16 or 18 total Str. Maybe 20 Str with a potion. With BAB alone, that's a +8-10 attack. But his Sword is MWK, he probably has flanking or charge bonus for +2, so more like +11-13 in practice. Which means that realistically, the Fighter will miss ~maybe~ once this fight. If he's using a greatsword, he's dealing 2d6+(4....7)+2 damage(Weapon Spec). Let's assume 20 Str, cause that's core for you. So.....16 damage per hit. 4x Fighters could kill this troll with minimal equipment on a first-strike before the Troll had a turn to act on. Admittedly, the party won't have this Fighter's odds of 16+ damage on average, so let's assume a more modest 30 damage per round from the whole party. That means the Troll gets 1 turn, to attack the Fighter. Fighter has 10 Dex, but he bought MWK Full Plate, enchanted it(+9 AC)(cause that's cheaper than the full plate.....), an enchanted shield(+3 AC), so his AC is a chunky 22. With a party Druid or Cleric that spent their first round buffing the Fighter, we're talking 24 AC. And the Troll needs to land all 3 attacks to drop the fighter. Round 2, the Troll probably goes down.

Reasonable round-by-round:
Surprise: See Troll, fighter downs potion, Troll moves closer, and Rogue hides.
Round 1: Rouge gets an arrow off from hiding, dealing ~15 damage on a hit. Fighter Charges, and deals ~16 damage. Cleric buffs someone. Wizard casts Grease. Troll can't full attack anyone but Fighter, depending on turn order. That's a worst-case.
Round 2: Fighter attacks again, Rogue drops bow, draws dagger, tumbles for the flank. Another ~29 damage. Wizard takes a nap, and the Cleric offers the Troll surrender terms. Troll agrees cause he's at 3 HP and prone at this point.
Round 3: Fighter says **** that and shanks the Troll anyway. Rogue murders the wizard in his sleep, because d6s *CAN* melt d4 beams. Cleric is now in stand off against 2 angry mercenaries and half his spells are cures.
Round 4: You don't want to know what happens here.....

[tedcahill2]

Surprise: See Troll, fighter downs potion, Troll moves closer, and Rogue hides.
Round 1: Rouge gets an arrow off from hiding, dealing ~15 damage on a hit. Fighter Charges, and deals ~16 damage. Cleric buffs someone. Wizard casts Grease. Troll can't full attack anyone but Fighter, depending on turn order. That's a worst-case.
Round 2: Fighter attacks again, Rogue drops bow, draws dagger, tumbles for the flank. Another ~29 damage. Wizard takes a nap, and the Cleric offers the Troll surrender terms. Troll agrees cause he's at 3 HP and prone at this point.
Round 3: Fighter says **** that and shanks the Troll anyway. Rogue murders the wizard in his sleep, because d6s *CAN* melt d4 beams. Cleric is now in stand off against 2 angry mercenaries and half his spells are cures.
Round 4: You don't want to know what happens here.....

That escalated quickly.

[Blu]

For ability generation i always like to go and encourage other DM's to go with point-buy. Random generation can seem fun but in the core it's a really unfair system, normally in tables i see people rolling stats there's always a guy whose best stat is a 14 and the guy who's worst stat is 16 and that is really unfair for the players.

Also, sometimes random stat rolls can really f*** up a character, especially lower tier classes. Wanting to play a fighter with a 18 and rest of stats are 12? You can, but it will be hard and most of your build will compensate for that, while our wizard friends just puts 18 to int and rolls with it.

[Godskook]

That escalated quickly.

And all that with just the Elite Array.

[Sagetim]

The rare times I run a game, I want my players to be big damn hero level, so I give them an option: take the array or roll stats, and if you get worse, you can take the array anyway. The Array in question is 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. And if the players bother to ask me, I can be negotiated into letting you move points between stats on a one for one basis if you need that to make your build work (like you might for a Monk, or what have you). This gives the players the ability to build people who are the actual cream of the crop and can significantly impact the world by being more naturally talented than just about everyone else, let alone whatever skills or class abilities they might bring to bear.

To answer the question though: yes, the stats matter. Having that 18 in strength as a melee fighter means being +2 better at hitting and +3ish damage than your elite array counterpart. That's a 10% better chance to hit high ac opponents, and every little bit of damage helps against such things. 16 con instead of 14, or 13, is an extra 1 or 2 hp per level than you would otherwise have. Higher dexterity gives you the option of using mithral full plate later on for a better overall AC than just trudging around in full plate. Not having a penalty to your int means you aren't sitting around looking at your 1 skill point per level and wishing your class hadn't been viciously hobbled by whoever designed it. And having a bonus to wisdom instead of neutral or penalty means having a better will save, better perception skills, and so on.

So, for context, a fighter with a bull's strength spell backing him up and the elite array has, what, 16 strenght +4 for 20? Well, with that 18 base, you're looking at 19+4 for 23, and both fighters in question could have gone half orc for more strength to get 22 and 25 respectively. then at level 8, the higher stat bonus has more of an edge again, and if we assume that both are going to get the same inherent bonuses later, then over 20 levels they could get +10 to their strength score. That difference of 3 points winds up mattering as near misses become hits, low damage has just a bit higher floor, and so on. Oh, and carry capacity is wildly different based on stats. At higher strength levels the difference becomes more and more noticable, not necessarily in a ratio, but in the actual numbers involved. You can deadlift more with 25 strength than 22.

Every little bit of AC adds up, every little point of hp, and so on and so on. It's why I also just give my players max hp each level. For one, it means that d12 classes have a strict advantage and that low rolls don't make it feel pointless. For two, it means that my players have enough hp that they can handle difficult fights and long encounters without as many problems. And for three it means they (hopefully) don't feel as obligated to super optimize for combat in a desperate desire to survive combat encounters at all. I also don't start anyone at level 1 in 3.5, or pathfinder, unless the expressed purpose of the game is to introduce new players to the rules. It's easier to get a handle on things when you aren't required to immediately try to level and wrap your head around the options at the get go.

But the kind of campaigns I run generally involve people who are already highly competent and talented being gathered and set to a task. And that means being mid level at least, and having good stats and max hp. And then where the players go from there is up to them.

[AOKost]

I feel that the biggest difference is more power at lower levels, and the availability of spells and the use of special abilities that rely on higher ability scores. As characters increase in level, higher ability scores are important, but are over rated too due in large part to the availability to magic, including items. I, and I'm sure everyone, prefer having higher ability scores, so I give my players 90 points to distribute point or point so long as no ability is lower than 5 after racial modifiers and 18 before racial modifiers.

I know 90 sounds like a lot, and it could be. That allows an average of 15 and with that you could literally play anything, and that's the point. But they are more likely to distribute the points to help them become more the archetype characters they want to become. The person that wants to play the slayer/rogue/assassin character generally has a lower strength, and higher dexterity, while taking feats like Weapon Finesse to take advantage of the high dexterity.

I know from experience that you can roll higher than 90 points. I've rolled in front of a group 4 18s a 16 and a 15 before, totaling 103... none of us could believe it, and to this day I don't think I could ever get that lucky again. But I set the limit at 90 points to help skew things. I could just as easily tell everyone they've got 18s in every ability score, but that's not fun either. Players like knowing their character's unique, and being able to distribute 90 is more fun.

Most games I run, I use a very different and unique character creation and advancement system, so that's quite a bit different. For regular games, higher stats don't really change much in the long run, and can let the players feel like the heros they are supposed to be.

[Godskook]

I feel that the biggest difference is more power at lower levels, and the availability of spells and the use of special abilities that rely on higher ability scores. As characters increase in level, higher ability scores are important, but are over rated too due in large part to the availability to magic, including items. I, and I'm sure everyone, prefer having higher ability scores, so I give my players 90 points to distribute point or point so long as no ability is lower than 5 after racial modifiers and 18 before racial modifiers.

I know 90 sounds like a lot, and it could be. That allows an average of 15 and with that you could literally play anything, and that's the point. But they are more likely to distribute the points to help them become more the archetype characters they want to become. The person that wants to play the slayer/rogue/assassin character generally has a lower strength, and higher dexterity, while taking feats like Weapon Finesse to take advantage of the high dexterity.

I know from experience that you can roll higher than 90 points. I've rolled in front of a group 4 18s a 16 and a 15 before, totaling 103... none of us could believe it, and to this day I don't think I could ever get that lucky again. But I set the limit at 90 points to help skew things. I could just as easily tell everyone they've got 18s in every ability score, but that's not fun either. Players like knowing their character's unique, and being able to distribute 90 is more fun.

Most games I run, I use a very different and unique character creation and advancement system, so that's quite a bit different. For regular games, higher stats don't really change much in the long run, and can let the players feel like the heros they are supposed to be.

You know, you confused me because you never explained your system for calculating stats, and its non-standard. By the standard point-buy system, 90 points is a *LOT*. Your choices are 18/18/18/18/18/16 or 18/18/18/18/17/17

[KillianHawkeye]

You know, you confused me because you never explained your system for calculating stats, and its non-standard. By the standard point-buy system, 90 points is a *LOT*. Your choices are 18/18/18/18/18/16 or 18/18/18/18/17/17

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean point buy, just 90 points to distribute between six ability scores. 90/6 = 15

One of the DMs in my group uses a similar system.

[AOKost]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean point buy, just 90 points to distribute between six ability scores. 90/6 = 15

One of the DMs in my group uses a similar system.

You are correct. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear.

When I rolled 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 15 we were rolling 4d6 drop the lowest.

[WesleyVos]

I usually allow my players a choice of 32-36 point buy (depending on the game) and rolling 3d6+6x7, drop lowest die and roll. I find that the average on the rolls tends to be a bit better than the point buy, but only because I essentially give them an auto-six. I also allow rerolls of the whole array if the dice make the concept unplayable.

[Pugwampy]

Players are supposed to be heroes . I see nothing wrong with giving them the best chance possible to get one or two or even three 18 .

I let em roll 6 4d6 drop the lowest and as a final hail mary , I let em roll a D20 and replace one of their stats if they rolled high enough although an 19/20 roll only gets them 18 .

Sad fact of life is even with all that they may not even get one little 18 . If they dont really want to chance it , I also offer them enough "pool" points to make a 18 / 18 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 10 dude if they want . If their chosen class is an AB hog I try to dissuade them from taking pool points .

Most prefer to try their luck with rolling anyways .

[Jay R]

In original D&D, the stats didn't matter too much, and in AD&D, they mattered somewhat more.

But since this thread is in the3e/3.5e/d20 thread, yes, the stats make a huge difference.

[J-H]

I like Sagetim's 18/16... array. I think i will use it if or when I start another game.

[Naez]

What I've settled on as the most fun is the standard 6x best 3 of 4d6 but everyone can use the spread of who ever has rolled best. which in my last game was 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 14.

[Telok]

In original D&D, the stats didn't matter too much, and in AD&D, they mattered somewhat more.

But since this thread is in the3e/3.5e/d20 thread, yes, the stats make a huge difference.

Truth.

I like rolling, always choose it when I can because sometimes interesting things happen. That said, I've found a rolling system that satisfies the 'dice rolls=bad' crowd:
4d6 drop lowest three times, reroll anything below 7.
27 - one roll, 25 - another roll, 23 - last roll, nothing over 18.
Arrange as desired and apply racial modifiers.

Three even numbers, three odd numbers, and good/bad rolls are balanced out.

[tedcahill2]

I like point buy, due to the inherit fairness of everyone getting the same points, but I also really like "organic" characters.

Roll 4d6 drop lowest in order, 1st roll = Str, 2nd roll = Dex, etc.
Then choose one stat to reroll, keep only if higher.
Then choose two stats and swap them.