Strawpoll: Have you seen rolled stats worse than point buy?

[CantigThimble]

So there's a common idea that rolling stats is exclusively a tool of powergamers who aren't actually taking any risks by rolling stats because they can convince their DMs to let them reroll or default to point buy if they roll badly. I'm just curious how true that assumption is.

So, has anyone in your group ever played a character with rolled stats that were worse than point buy? (P.S. please don't consider characters made for one-shot adventures here, I'm much more curious about characters intended for long term play)

https://strawpoll.com/3sfxp3gw

[staylost]

3d6 = average stat of 10.5

Traditional rolled stats should, on average, be much worse than point buy.

I've found that 4d6 and drop the worst roll best matches the numbers you can get from point buy or standard array.

[The Robot Goat]

I love rolling stats, and I'm almost the farthest you could get from a powergamer (no tea no shade, everybody plays differently). Admittedly, I have asked to reroll stats before, mostly when I got, like, a bunch of 12s and 11s. I like the idea of the extremes it allows you, an extremely strong but dumb character, or an incredibly fast but socially inept one, but I tend to play more comedic characters, so to each their own. I have also, however, never heard the idea that powergamers use it, I was always under the impression that players who wanted to optimize would avoid it, as they had very little control over the outcome.

But on to the point of the question: I once rolled a character with a 5 for wisdom, I think his highest was a 16 constitution, it was a long time ago. He wasn't a very good character, but unfortunately the game petered out after a few sessions, so I have no idea whether he would have worked in long term play. He was a barbarian, but I only rolled a 15 for strength (after his racial bonuses were applied), I think he had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which kinda leveled the playing field. He still wasn't very effective, but that might have just been poor decision making on my part.

[lperkins2]

Heh, I ended up playing a bard (college of swords) with 11 Charisma from rolled stats. Stats were 6+2d6, got a 15, a 13, and the rest 11 or lower. 15 went into dex, 13 con, and 11 cha. Was actually kinda fun trying to figure out spells that don't suck with low cha.

[CTurbo]

The problem is that people will roll 4d6 drop lowest 3 or 4 times to get their final stats. Or 4d6 drop lowest while also rerolling ones, or even 5d6 drop the two lowest.

Those are the reasons you see people with 18, 17, 17, 16, 15, 15 arrays.

I agree that if you're going to roll 4d6 drop lowest, you should do it once and accept what you get OR take point buy. But this is also why I like for everybody at the table to roll once but then anybody can pick anybody's array.

I don't care how powerful they are as long as they're relatively equal in the end.

The last time that my table rolled, they ended up with an array that very much closely resembled the standard array.

[CantigThimble]

Interesting, so far the majority has responded that rolled arrays worse than standard have been used. I think that definitely dispels the idea that the only reason people used rolled arrays is because they want to be stronger (though some people undoubtedly do roll for that reason).

I have also seen the phenomena of rerolling, but I have not seen it consistently used for the sake of becoming more powerful. I HAVE seen it consistently used for the sake of being more interesting: doing more to spark the particular player's imagination.

I've seen people who wanted to reroll exceptionally high arrays because they wanted to play a character with more flaws and weaknesses, I've seen people want to reroll average arrays because they wanted someone with more highs and lows and I've seen people want to reroll low arrays because they didn't find the idea of playing a below average character interesting.

I've also seen people want to reroll because they wanted each of the above.

Now, you could reasonably say that if you're just going to reroll until you get an array that appeals to you wouldn't it make more sense to just pick the stats you want and not bother with dice? Yes, but we aren't 100% logical creatures and there is definitely a visceral appeal to rolling dice for a character. Some people want that as well as having a kind of array that appeals to them.

[CTurbo]

The last time we rolled, when we ended up with an array similar to the standard array, my sister in law did roll way too well so she redid it. I think she rolled three 17s and didnt have anything lower than a 13.

I do like the randomness of rolling though. I like when you can start with at least one 16 because it promotes the use of abnormal races/class combos people would normally not use together.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My first two rolled-stat characters (the others were standard array) were (using 4d6b3 x 6, arrange at will):

14, 11, 10, 10, 8, 6

And

14, 10, 7, 7, 7, 7

So yes, I've seen worse than point buy. I've never actually played at a point buy table. It's either a roll variant or standard array.

[Pex]

So there's a common idea that rolling stats is exclusively a tool of powergamers who aren't actually taking any risks by rolling stats because they can convince their DMs to let them reroll or default to point buy if they roll badly. I'm just curious how true that assumption is.

So, has anyone in your group ever played a character with rolled stats that were worse than point buy? (P.S. please don't consider characters made for one-shot adventures here, I'm much more curious about characters intended for long term play)

https://strawpoll.com/3sfxp3gw

I did once in a 2E game. There was no point buy back then, but the array was bad. I did alright with it, though it was annoying for that one level when the wizard had one more hit point than my paladin.

In any case, there's no shame or stigma to acknowledge the inherent weakness of dice rolling can provide a poor array and reroll. Using Point Buy does not make you a superior player. Power gamers can use it just as well, and neither is a power game any inferior of a player. It's a player type, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't playing the game wrong.

[MeeposFire]

I did once in a 2E game. There was no point buy back then, but the array was bad. I did alright with it, though it was annoying for that one level when the wizard had one more hit point than my paladin.

In any case, there's no shame or stigma to acknowledge the inherent weakness of dice rolling can provide a poor array and reroll. Using Point Buy does not make you a superior player. Power gamers can use it just as well, and neither is a power game any inferior of a player. It's a player type, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't playing the game wrong.

One nice aspect of 2e and 1e was that while having high stats is of course awesome having lowish stats were not that big of a deal either. The difference between a 9-15 in str was how much you could carry and slightly different chances at things like opening stuck doors. Heck the difference between a 9 str and a standard 18 was +1 to hit and +2 to damage which is not much. Some stats do a bit better but even so AD&D stats did not have that huge of a difference between standard high and low stats (some stats like str do get huge differences once you hit above standard human values but in standard human values the difference is not so big).

The good is that if you did not have great stats you would be fine but of course the negative for some is that even when using high stats it does not always make you feel you have such great stats.

[Floogal]

Alright, let's dig out my old human lore bard's character sheet:

Standard 4d6 drop lowest six times, my array was: 16, 11, 10, 9, 8, 4

More troubling was my horrendous HP rolls. My rolls were 8 (first level is maxed, like normal), 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 2, 2. A tenth level character with 24 HP (before Con mod applied).

In combat I stayed far away and supported, the devotion paladin would occasionally cast sanctuary on me. I frequently dropped in combat, but it wasn't until the very last battle of the campaign that I died: a white dragon's breath weapon did over double my max HP, and instantly killed me from full health. I made sure to freeze in a dramatic pose.

[Cybren]

Alright, let's dig out my old human lore bard's character sheet:

Standard 4d6 drop lowest six times, my array was: 16, 11, 10, 9, 8, 4

More troubling was my horrendous HP rolls. My rolls were 8 (first level is maxed, like normal), 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 2, 2. A tenth level character with 24 HP (before Con mod applied).

In combat I stayed far away and supported, the devotion paladin would occasionally cast sanctuary on me. I frequently dropped in combat, but it wasn't until the very last battle of the campaign that I died: a white dragon's breath weapon did over double my max HP, and instantly killed me from full health. I made sure to freeze in a dramatic pose.

I rolled pretty well on stats with my valor bard, winding up with ability scores slightly above point buy value, but I never rolled under a 6 for hit points. It was great.

[MaxWilson]

So there's a common idea that rolling stats is exclusively a tool of powergamers who aren't actually taking any risks by rolling stats because they can convince their DMs to let them reroll or default to point buy if they roll badly. I'm just curious how true that assumption is.

So, has anyone in your group ever played a character with rolled stats that were worse than point buy? (P.S. please don't consider characters made for one-shot adventures here, I'm much more curious about characters intended for long term play)

https://strawpoll.com/3sfxp3gw

I originally answered "Never strictly worse but sometimes arguably worse," but I thought of some cases that were strictly worse and not one-shots. The poll won't let me change my vote, but FYI that "never strictly worse" number is now slightly inflated and "sometimes strictly worse" should be higher.

[gjf2a]

Rolling 4d6 drop the lowest is equivalent, on average, to a 30-point buy.
Rolling 3d6 is equivalent, on average, to a 17-point buy.

Slightly less than 2/3 of 4d6-drop characters will equal or exceed a 27-point buy. Slightly over 1/3 will be below that. That's the risk with 4d6. Odds favor a better character, but there's a big risk of a problematic one.

Only about 14% of 3d6 characters will equal or exceed a 27-point buy.

To calculate these equivalences and probabilities, I wrote the following Python program, which I am placing in the public domain. Feel free to use/modify/critique as you see fit. The basic logic of the program is as follows:
- The four_d_6_drop() function rolls 4d6 and drops the lowest value.
- The three_d_6() function rolls 3d6.
- The points_bought() function, given an ability score, calculates the points needed to obtain the score. Scores below 8 return a negative number. Scores of 14 or higher, including scores above 15, require two points per increment.
- The points_bought_character() function takes a die roller (e.g. three_d_6) as a parameter, creates a list of six scores, and calculates the total point-buy needed for that list. It then returns both the list and the total point-buy.
- The mean_points_per_character() function creates as many characters as you would like, and returns the average point-buy per character.
- The number_below_target() function again creates as many characters as you would like, but then reports the number whose point-buy is below a given target.

Here's an example of using the program to calculate the average point-buy:


>>> mean_points_per_character(1000, four_d_6_drop)
29.969
>>> number_below_target(27, 1000, four_d_6_drop)
369
>>> mean_points_per_character(1000, three_d_6)
17.273
>>> number_below_target(27, 1000, three_d_6)
857


import random

def four_d_6_drop():
scores = [random.randint(1, 6) for i in range(4)]
return sum(scores) - min(scores)

def three_d_6():
return sum(random.randint(1, 6) for i in range(3))

def points_bought(score):
return score - 8 + max(0, score - 13)

def points_bought_character(roller):
scores = [roller() for i in range(6)]
return scores, sum(points_bought(s) for s in scores)

def mean_points_per_character(n, roller):
characters = [points_bought_character(roller)[1] for i in range(n)]
return sum(characters) / len(characters)

def number_below_target(target, n, roller):
characters = [points_bought_character(roller)[1] for i in range(n)]
return len([c for c in characters if c < target])

[Pex]

One nice aspect of 2e and 1e was that while having high stats is of course awesome having lowish stats were not that big of a deal either. The difference between a 9-15 in str was how much you could carry and slightly different chances at things like opening stuck doors. Heck the difference between a 9 str and a standard 18 was +1 to hit and +2 to damage which is not much. Some stats do a bit better but even so AD&D stats did not have that huge of a difference between standard high and low stats (some stats like str do get huge differences once you hit above standard human values but in standard human values the difference is not so big).

The good is that if you did not have great stats you would be fine but of course the negative for some is that even when using high stats it does not always make you feel you have such great stats.

I had the bare minimum to qualify for the paladin I wanted to play. The worse thing was as I was rolling and the DM saw how poor it was, he was going to let me reroll but on the last roll that's when I get an 18 so a reroll couldn't be justified. I was forced to put it in CH as needed by the rules. 12 ST, 10 DX, 12 or 13 CO. For a warrior I was a chump. Still, I loved the character. He was fun to play. He was wholesome. He didn't know he was a paladin. He never got sick just because. His Lay On Hands was just a pat on the back of encouragement, akin to when his mother kissed his booboos to make the ouchy go away. His girlfriend was the schoolhouse teacher. His name was Gilbert, named after the character from Anne of Green Gables of which I had recently seen the Megan Follows mini-series at the time.

[Sigreid]

Oh yeah. It's fun.

[sithlordnergal]

Because the dice hate me I have rolled stats where my absolute highest stat was a 12. I rolled just well enough that when I added my ability score bonuses together I got 0, and the dm only allowed re-rolls if you had a negative total.

Thankfully I was able to boost that 12 to a 14 with racial stuff, but that was a crappy character none the less. X_X

[Willie the Duck]

So there's a common idea that rolling stats is exclusively a tool of powergamers who aren't actually taking any risks by rolling stats because they can convince their DMs to let them reroll or default to point buy if they roll badly. I'm just curious how true that assumption is.

Look, no one can say that arguing for a re-roll (or I guess arguing to default to point buy, although I've never heard of that one in practice) hasn't happened. It undoubtedly has. People have also cheated on their stats rolls, which you'd like to think we'd all be more mature than (given that it is just a game). But I think the idea that this is a widespread occurrence amongst those who use random roll, much less that it is the reason for using it, is unsupported.

It also seems just a little too convenient of a line of reasoning for those who might want to heap additional praise upon their own chosen method. You know, we like point buy, it's fair for everyone. Besides, those other guys who like random-rolling, yeah, they only do their method because they want to cheatpowergame. I am not saying that's why people believe this trope (I think it's an urban legend that just keeps getting passed around), just perhaps how it got started.

Point buy/array have all sorts of things going for them. It is definitely fair (random roll only counting in that everyone has an equal chance to be the one to get a good roll. Also, everyone starting with 17 or lower in stats regardless of race is a different balance point than starting with up to racially-modified 20s. There are enough reasons to argue for those methods without random roll being something cheap/cheesy/nepharious.

[Bubzors]

My group likes to roll for our stats and have done so for years. However, we allow you to pick standard array, point buy or roll. We do 4d6 drop the lowest.

The only exception we do is that if you roll terribly (add up all ability score modifiers and if it is negative) you can choose to use standard array instead. Not very fun to play a game with stats like 11, 12, 10, 9, 9, 7

[Waterdeep Merch]

I used to hate rolling stats because dice tend to hate me, but despite all my whining I've never once rolled poorly. Come to think of it, I've always ended up with really, really high stats. Once I got two 18's and nothing below a 12. It was the other players who whined then, despite forcing me into rolling in the first place because of how much I didn't want to.

But I've seen other people get just awful stats, and I remember three times pretty vividly-

1.) A player got nothing but 11-13 on every single roll. Technically this isn't all that bad, just incredibly mediocre and not really any good at any class. This one got played.
2.) Another player got nothing besides 10's and 11's. Really, nothing else. The consistency was amazing. Like the above, but even worse. The player, a newbie, didn't end up playing it. That would have been too cruel for a first time.
3.) The real crowning achievement, though, goes to a recent player who had an 11 as their only stat above 8 and a 5 as their lowest. He played it, too. Named him Gimpy.

[WereRabbitz]

When i'm DM'ing i always prefer Point Buy in.


Nothing is worse then a new player with a bunch of subpar rolls or a experienced player with 18's at level 1.


Besides with point buy your looking at level 8 or 12 before you max out your favored stat and that allows you character to grow and show improvement over levels as their stats work towards the cap. It also allows a bit of fairness and better baseline of what characters can handle.

I'm all for players rolling 3d6 and running with mediocre stats, but it's not for the faint of heart and most experienced players tend to lean towards min/maxing and don't like it, but I think 4d6 hurts your stats it can rob you of a feat as your try to repair damage with low stats, and high stats is basically a free feat compared to standard. It's too random and most players are not mature enough to handle 1 player with awesome stats and 1 player with subpar stats without feelings getting hurt.

Another thing I don't like is people often will try weird stats like 18 int and 5 wisdom... that is a challenge to roleplay and most will completely fail or omit it, More averaged out stats are more realistic.

Keep it Simple.
Keep it Standard.

[JoeJ]

It's too random and most players are not mature enough to handle 1 player with awesome stats and 1 player with subpar stats without feelings getting hurt.

For a long time this was the only way to play. What do you think has changed about players over the years to make them no longer able to handle it?

[Sigreid]

I remember in AD&D having a character whose stats were so low he only qualified to be a thief. The only class with no stat requirements. It was also unlikely that you would ever be able to raise a stat. It was honestly a more fun character to play than the one that had 4 18s. Make enough characters over enough time and you will hit all the extremes.

[KorvinStarmast]

3d6 = average stat of 10.5

Traditional rolled stats should, on average, be much worse than point buy.

I've found that 4d6 and drop the worst roll best matches the numbers you can get from point buy or standard array. we had a discussion about this a few months ago.

The 4d6 drop worst actually averages slightly better than standard array (https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/).

4d6 Drop Lowest averages 12.24.
15.66, 14.17, 12.96, 11.76, 10.41, 8.50.
{16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9} per the link and rounding.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is standard array. It's one to two points wrong, though if you look at the cost of going from 15 - 16 that's a different discussion.

[Master O'Laughs]

Several times on Roll 20 using 4d6k3, I have gotten characters with 2 positive modifiers, 2 0 modifiers, and 2 negative modifiers. This has happened for the majority of my characters I have rolled online.

I have seen a friend roll and get like one 13 and the rest negative modifiers.

The opposite is true as well.

[Cynthaer]

I'm all for players rolling 3d6 and running with mediocre stats, but it's not for the faint of heart and most experienced players tend to lean towards min/maxing and don't like it, but I think 4d6 hurts your stats it can rob you of a feat as your try to repair damage with low stats, and high stats is basically a free feat compared to standard. It's too random and most players are not mature enough to handle 1 player with awesome stats and 1 player with subpar stats without feelings getting hurt.


For a long time this was the only way to play. What do you think has changed about players over the years to make them no longer able to handle it?

I can't speak for WereRabbitz, but I wouldn't say players have changed. (I also wouldn't say it's a matter of "maturity".)

I think there are two factors:

First, I don't think having drastic (uncontrollable) stat disparities between characters has ever made a good game experience for games with long-term characters. Some people really enjoy it, of course, but most of the time I'd say it is a net negative for a gaming table chosen at random.

Second, the longevity of individual characters has massively increased across different editions. Everyone always talks about how back in the 80's they rolled up to the table with a binder full of character sheets because characters died permanently so easily and so frequently.

In that context, I think using pure dice rolls is vastly more fun than point buy. If I'm going through five characters in a single session, it's incredibly boring for them all to have nearly identical stats in slightly different configurations. Rolling stats makes Jonathan Fightingman and Jonathan Fightingman, Jr. different from each other.

With so many characters, it also means that each player is going to have a handful of high-stat characters at some point, and it means they're unlikely to have to play a low-stat character very long before they die anyway and the player can move on to a better character. And if they don't die, that's also exciting—now you have the story of how Medric the Mediocre survived a dungeon that killed two dozen more competent explorers!

You don't really have any of these effects in the modern D&D paradigm, where death is unlikely and reversible. Even at level 1, we expect our characters to be characters, rather than board game pieces, and we expect to play that character through to the end of the campaign unless something extraordinary happens.

In this context, there's no intrinsic emotional reward when you roll low on your one character. You don't need the "lows" to experience the "highs", because for you there is never going to be a "high"—this is the only character you're going to be playing. The only satisfaction to be had is if you take pride in standing by your word and using your low rolls, but for most people that doesn't make up for just having worse stats than their party members.

TL;DR: Power disparities are fun when they are temporary and players go through multiple characters over time. Power disparities are not fun when they are permanent and players only have one character for the entire campaign.

[WereRabbitz]

I can't speak for WereRabbitz, but I wouldn't say players have changed. (I also wouldn't say it's a matter of "maturity".)

....

Maturity may of been a little harsh, but I do agree characters have a longer lifespan now and those minor differences add up over the life of a character, longer it lives the more it adds up :) Although I think it's safe to safe players do change quite a bit.

Either way i like to see the players & their stats progress slowly over levels so i am a little dismayed at the thought of a level 1 having 17-20 in a starting stat thanks to a lucky roll and a racial. If feels like people don't appreciate that anything over 10 is above average as much as they should. This could just very well be a jaded point of view based on the groups I play with though. /shrug.

[Sariel Vailo]

I once rolled a 3 so barbarian was the evident choice.

[CTurbo]

My biggest problem with rolling is one player will end up with 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 and another player will end up with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and that is never fun especially for the DM.

As long as my players are on equal footing, I don't care if they have 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 or 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

[MaxWilson]

My group likes to roll for our stats and have done so for years. However, we allow you to pick standard array, point buy or roll. We do 4d6 drop the lowest.

The only exception we do is that if you roll terribly (add up all ability score modifiers and if it is negative) you can choose to use standard array instead. Not very fun to play a game with stats like 11, 12, 10, 9, 9, 7

I think that really depends. 3d6 in order can be really, really fun, although it's a completely different sort of game than standard murderhobo play. You wind up with things like crippled old Barbarians with Str 6 but Con 15, or Int 6 Necromancers whose best stat is a 9 and who tromp around in heavy armor despite being nonproficient with it, and spend their actions in combat Dodging while using their bonus action to shriek at their minions, "Kill them! Kill them all!"

But rolling low stats is only fun in a context where you're expecting it and appreciate the challenge. If you were hoping for high rolls and got [rolls 3d6 in order on BrockJones.com] 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, 9, that would stink.

Personally, I think I would hate playing a character with straight 12s far more than a character with 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, 9 in order. Straight 12s just doesn't inspire me with any ideas for his personality besides "reasonably fit and intelligent infantry Corporal; a good NCO but not someone who's likely to excel."


Second, the longevity of individual characters has massively increased across different editions. Everyone always talks about how back in the 80's they rolled up to the table with a binder full of character sheets because characters died permanently so easily and so frequently.

In that context, I think using pure dice rolls is vastly more fun than point buy. If I'm going through five characters in a single session, it's incredibly boring for them all to have nearly identical stats in slightly different configurations. Rolling stats makes Jonathan Fightingman and Jonathan Fightingman, Jr. different from each other.

With so many characters, it also means that each player is going to have a handful of high-stat characters at some point, and it means they're unlikely to have to play a low-stat character very long before they die anyway and the player can move on to a better character. And if they don't die, that's also exciting—now you have the story of how Medric the Mediocre survived a dungeon that killed two dozen more competent explorers!

+1, quoting for insight.

[CTurbo]

I love rolling stats in order. Always great fun.


I've rolled 2d6+6 before as well as 3d6+6 drop lowest to at least guarantee that you don't get stuck with less than an 8.

[Anonymouswizard]

For a long time this was the only way to play. What do you think has changed about players over the years to make them no longer able to handle it?

A few things. I'm going to leave the issues of player maturity behind, because while that can have an influence on stats (especially the desire to redo 'good but not great' rolls like 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7) it also causes a lot of problems in other aspects of playing.

No, the two key issues are increased character lifespan and the rise of point buy systems.

I might be the outlier here, but in at least 70% of the systems I own rolling for stats isn't an option. You either get a preset number of stat points (games like Victoriana), buy them with the same points you do everything else (games like GURPS), games which do both, and games which make you buy with points but cap the numbers you can have (for example The Dark Eye 5e, where you can't begin with more than 100 total Attribute points). Therefore, a lot of people returning to D&D after playing other games are used to being able to put their stats where they want, and it's only 'fair' that everybody has exactly the same ability to have high stats (which is not the same as having thje same chance). I've been affected by this, I hate rolling because having 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 feels bad when somebody else got 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, I'd much rather just use point buy or the standard array because for better or worse it's fair.

Increased character lifespan is also a big component. Before it didn't matter if you had straight 10s or straight 18s, you were likely to die before hitting third level anyway. Therefore you'd play several characters and some of them would survive, probably the ones with slightly better stats. There was much less chance of playing the guy with six 3s for the entire campaign.

[Stan]

We used to roll in order. That can be fun for a light one shot but it could be frustrating when the only class you're qualified for is not one you wanted to play.

When playing online over the last decade, unless we use a dice roller with a record, I notice some people will send me characters with mods around +7 but other will be around +13. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating. It's easier just to tell everyone to use point buy or standard array.

[Erst]

I'm usually a person who likes to point buy their stats, but unfortunately, in this game, it wasn't an option. Either being the standard array or 4d6 drop lowest. Feeling like I wanted to mix it up a little and see what lady luck bought me, I decided to roll.

I got the standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

I was very disappointed.

I almost would have preffered rolling worse stats, as it could be turned into something interesting RP or flavor wise.

Back on the main subject of the thread, I've seen some people get pretty unlucky and roll badly with a mediocre array of 9-13s and one 14, which is such a letdown, knowing that you could have made the choice not to duck yourself.

One of my players rolled a rogue with 5 INT and 17 WIS. We had a few good laughs when he failed a few history checks. (Also, if the ranger got an ape animal compainion, it would have been smarter than the rogue.)

[mephnick]

TL;DR: Power disparities are fun when they are temporary and players go through multiple characters over time. Power disparities are not fun when they are permanent and players only have one character for the entire campaign.

Exactly.

As much as I hate it, most campaigns these days are like Critical Role. One cast of characters assumed to survive the adventure for narrative consistency. Point-buy allows everyone to have an effective character and avoids haves and have-nots, which is important for characters that could last months up to years.

[Arcangel4774]

Tjough not the key point of this concept o always like to roll 4d6b3 in order. It can create some interesting character.

[Pex]

My biggest problem with rolling is one player will end up with 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 and another player will end up with 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and that is never fun especially for the DM.

As long as my players are on equal footing, I don't care if they have 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18 or 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

So let the second player reroll. It's touchy, but maybe ask the first player to lower a couple of scores depending on what the second player gets on his reroll. Maybe have the second player also use the array the first player got.

[mephnick]

So let the second player reroll. It's touchy, but maybe ask the first player to lower a couple of scores depending on what the second player gets on his reroll. Maybe have the second player also use the array the first player got.

Then it becomes this thing where everyone's sitting there like...why are we even rolling if we're going to modify it all anyway?

My preferred method is to have everyone roll, but anyone can use anyone's roll. Generally there's 2 or 3 arrays that work for most character types and it becomes kind of a team game.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Then it becomes this thing where everyone's sitting there like...why are we even rolling if we're going to modify it all anyway?

My preferred method is to have everyone roll, but anyone can use anyone's roll. Generally there's 2 or 3 arrays that work for most character types and it becomes kind of a team game.
That's kind of interesting. I was thinking of having a more hardcore old school game soon, and wanted rolling to get that feel across. But I'm also deathly afraid of ruining it for my players and giving them a bad time before the crazy death traps start happening.

Letting the team roll out stats and trade them around might be fun. I was already going to let each player keep a stable of three characters that earn XP equally and can be switched out in town, so maybe I can let the players switch up to 2 scores with any other player- the catch being that it has to be from another player, you can't trade with your own characters.

Thank you, I think this'll do what I want.

[MaxWilson]

We used to roll in order. That can be fun for a light one shot but it could be frustrating when the only class you're qualified for is not one you wanted to play.

When playing online over the last decade, unless we use a dice roller with a record, I notice some people will send me characters with mods around +7 but other will be around +13. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating. It's easier just to tell everyone to use point buy or standard array.

Or just offer to roll their stats for them. Or roll in front of the whole group.

[MeeposFire]

Or just offer to roll their stats for them. Or roll in front of the whole group.

I always thought about having the group roll one set of dice and then pool all of the dice rolls that everybody gets to use. It is random but it is also equal. Then you can either have the players choose where each dice roll applies on stats or you can have them roll a d6 set each stat to one side of the dice and then randomly determine where each dice roll goes in order.

Gets the variability but keeps the fairness though unlike point buy there is no way to know going in whether the total will be better, worse, or about the same as any given point buy.

[MeeposFire]

I had the bare minimum to qualify for the paladin I wanted to play. The worse thing was as I was rolling and the DM saw how poor it was, he was going to let me reroll but on the last roll that's when I get an 18 so a reroll couldn't be justified. I was forced to put it in CH as needed by the rules. 12 ST, 10 DX, 12 or 13 CO. For a warrior I was a chump. Still, I loved the character. He was fun to play. He was wholesome. He didn't know he was a paladin. He never got sick just because. His Lay On Hands was just a pat on the back of encouragement, akin to when his mother kissed his booboos to make the ouchy go away. His girlfriend was the schoolhouse teacher. His name was Gilbert, named after the character from Anne of Green Gables of which I had recently seen the Megan Follows mini-series at the time.

Sounds like a fun character I did something similar with a fighter that had lowish stats but had high int. Oddly he was very effective because getting a bunch of extra prof was very potent if you were allowed to dumpster dive enough through the books.

Using your character as an example I would like to show that in addition to the other reasons already talked about another big difference is that stats just did not mean as much in general back then. We could raise your str by 3, dex by 4, con by 1 or 2, wisdom by maybe 4, and obviously not touch cha in this case and almost NOTHING would change. We could raise your stat total by 12-13 points and not really change your combat statistics much at all (you would increase one kind of saving throw that only applies in certain situations but that is about it and even if you did not touch wis it would still be 8-9 points). That would be a big increase using point buy and would make a nice difference in 3e, 4e, or 5e but in 2e and 1e adding all those stat points makes mostly little difference. It does make some changes (you could carry more with the higher str for example but that is not usually a huge combat change).

It is a big difference that not everyone would catch if you don't look at the AD&D ability score tables.

[Sigreid]

What I think I'm seeing here is a changing definition of what fair means. When I grew up, it meant the rules were the same but you may not in the end be equal depending on other things. For a lot of people now it seems fair and equal mean the same thing. That's not a value judgement, just an observation of changing definitions.

[Corran]

Where is the 'always strictly worse than PB' option?

[Anonymouswizard]

Exactly.

As much as I hate it, most campaigns these days are like Critical Role. One cast of characters assumed to survive the adventure for narrative consistency. Point-buy allows everyone to have an effective character and avoids haves and have-nots, which is important for characters that could last months up to years.

Honestly it's been like that for at least a decade in my experience, and I wouldn't be surprised if we were looking at 2-3 decades when adding in non-D&D games. While I'm personally more than fine with character death, even once coming with a prepared replacement because the last session ended with my character poisoned by Skaven, I've noticed that a lot of people aren't and there's quite a few even uncomfortable with permenant wounds.

Now most systems are also less lethal than low level oD&D. Even games known for being lethal still tend to let your characters take another sword hit or two before going down or dying. So this might explain where the tendency comes from (also, these days it seems to exclusively be retroclones that use rolled stats only, everything else at least gives the option for point buy).


What I think I'm seeing here is a changing definition of what fair means. When I grew up, it meant the rules were the same but you may not in the end be equal depending on other things. For a lot of people now it seems fair and equal mean the same thing. That's not a value judgement, just an observation of changing definitions.

I suppose there's two types of fair, equal chance and equal ability. In equal chance everybody rolls 3d6, and everybody has the same ability to get an 18. In equal ability everybody gets 27 points to spend, and everybody can buy an 18 if they want to. Both, I suppose, are 'fair', but the former feels more unfair when luck or unwillingness to cheat gives you stats universally two points behind Bob's (which equates to 10% less likely to succeed on an ability check).

[GlenSmash!]

Personally, I think I would hate playing a character with straight 12s far more than a character with 8, 10, 8, 10, 8, 9 in order. Straight 12s just doesn't inspire me with any ideas for his personality besides "reasonably fit and intelligent infantry Corporal; a good NCO but not someone who's likely to excel.".

This is interesting to me. I could play play the straight 12s character looking at their Personality Traits, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw for inspiration.

Not to mention that that guy could end up with one 20 and the rest twelves easily enough, making him perfectly likely to excel.

Still, I don't think I've ever had inspiration come from stats.

[Pex]

Then it becomes this thing where everyone's sitting there like...why are we even rolling if we're going to modify it all anyway?

My preferred method is to have everyone roll, but anyone can use anyone's roll. Generally there's 2 or 3 arrays that work for most character types and it becomes kind of a team game.

Because the inherent luck also means you won't always get a poor array. You can get interesting arrays you couldn't with Point Buy, more so with 5E's version. It's not easy to define what makes a decent enough array, but you'll know it when you see it and having an 8 is not a disqualification nor is having an 18 mandatory. In Point Buy players tend to have the same stats rearranged based on class with very little to no difference with in a class. It's nice to have something different that still works just for the sake of having something different.

DMs can just as well adjust Point Buy using a different buy in. Pathfinder offers the range of 15 to 25 and you can extrapolate other values. 3E had 25 to 32. 5E says 27 and that's it. DMs can say screw that to give a different value and allow purchasing above 15.

[MaxWilson]

This is interesting to me. I could play play the straight 12s character looking at their Personality Traits, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw for inspiration.

Not to mention that that guy could end up with one 20 and the rest twelves easily enough, making him perfectly likely to excel.

Still, I don't think I've ever had inspiration come from stats.

For me, Personality/Ideal/etc. is likely to be at least partially inspired by the shape of the stats, especially mental stats.

This is less true when you're using a party creation system (a la DramaSystem) where the players, at character creation time, define their relationships, emotional goals, tensions, etc. w/rt other PCs and NPCs, because then you've got a bunch of other inputs. But if you're creating a PC in a vacuum, the shape of the stats tends to drive the way I create a character, in perhaps the same way the shape of a block of stone drives the statue that an artist sculpts from the stone (by chipping away all the stone that isn't part of the statue).


I suppose there's two types of fair, equal chance and equal ability. In equal chance everybody rolls 3d6, and everybody has the same ability to get an 18. In equal ability everybody gets 27 points to spend, and everybody can buy an 18 if they want to. Both, I suppose, are 'fair', but the former feels more unfair when luck or unwillingness to cheat gives you stats universally two points behind Bob's (which equates to 10% less likely to succeed on an ability check).

5E is really, really bad at equal ability though. If you roll all 18s and play a blaster pure Red Dragon Sorcerer 20 who loves Scorching Ray, and I roll 16/12/10/10/10/10 and play a cunning Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul 17 who excels at both support and blasting, are your 18s really going to result in you having more impact on play than I am? Unlikely.

Player skill will always matter (and appropriately so). Part of player skill is knowing how to mitigate bad stats, either by playing a class that doesn't need high stats or by shrugging off your bad stats and playing the class your party needs (e.g. healer and summoner) without worrying overly much about the 5-10% degration in efficiency your non-ideal stats impose, relative to standard array.

Class choice and in-play decisions matter more than stats.

[GlenSmash!]

For me, Personality/Ideal/etc. is likely to be at least partially inspired by the shape of the stats, especially mental stats.

This is less true when you're using a party creation system (a la DramaSystem) where the players, at character creation time, define their relationships, emotional goals, tensions, etc. w/rt other PCs and NPCs, because then you've got a bunch of other inputs. But if you're creating a PC in a vacuum, the shape of the stats tends to drive the way I create a character, in perhaps the same way the shape of a block of stone drives the statue that an artist sculpts from the stone (by chipping away all the stone that isn't part of the statue).

I use the 5e PHB method of generating characters. IE I pick Race and Class before determining Ability Scores. I know determining Scores first is a popular method and has been around far longer than 5e has been around, but having started with this edition I;m pretty stuck in Concept first mode.

So since I start with concept before scores. Scores have little influence on Background traits for me.

This probably has influenced how I prefer scores like 14,14,14,13,13,8 to something with a lot of highs and lows since I can use them to fit most concepts I come up with. Granted all the concepts I come up with tend to be some version of "Warrior specialized or linked to the Wild that is good with a Longsword or Greatsword and a Longbow."

Interestingly that sameness of concept leads me to use greatly varied Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

[GlenSmash!]

Class choice and in-play decisions matter more than stats.

That we fully agree on.

[MaxWilson]

I use the 5e PHB method of generating characters. IE I pick Race and Class before determining Ability Scores. I know determining Scores first is a popular method and has been around far longer than 5e has been around, but having started with this edition I;m pretty stuck in Concept first mode.

So since I start with concept before scores. Scores have little influence on Background traits for me.

This probably has influenced how I prefer scores like 14,14,14,13,13,8 to something with a lot of highs and lows since I can use them to fit most concepts I come up with. Granted all the concepts I come up with tend to be some version of "Warrior specialized or linked to the Wild that is good with a Longsword or Greatsword and a Longbow."

Interestingly that sameness of concept leads me to use greatly varied Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

That makes sense. I can see why you'd prefer point buy, in that case.

[GlenSmash!]

That makes sense. I can see why you'd prefer point buy, in that case.

Thinking on it now, I guess its hard to break habits we've formed.

I think I'm starting to understand grognards!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSojaGAzauYgTy2bCSclBdbKhmMN0yjW fs_7WO3MK5ch4fl5I2TMQ

[Sigreid]

Thinking on it now, I guess its hard to break habits we've formed.

I think I'm starting to understand grognards!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSojaGAzauYgTy2bCSclBdbKhmMN0yjW fs_7WO3MK5ch4fl5I2TMQ

People do lots of things just because that's the way it has always been done. For us, it's the proper way.

[CantigThimble]

That makes sense. I can see why you'd prefer point buy, in that case.

Yeah, I almost always do stats first and base the concept on those stats. Having a 5 or an 18 in something just shapes the character so much that it can easily break a pre-made concept.

Actually, one of my recent campaigns started with a fellow player wanting to play a concept that requred above-average skill at archery and deception but then rolling 13,12,11,10,10,8. I ended up trading arrays with him (I had like an 18 and 2 16s).

He made a ranger who got along in roleplay by using high stealth and bluff checks and in combat by being able to dish out high damage. I made a fighter who got along in roleplay by being universally trusted by practically everyone and in combat by keeping everyone alive using heavy armor, positioning, protection style and the healer feat.

Personally, I don't really understand why people think power discrepancies are such a bad thing. In combat, its a team game and degree of individual contribution doesn't matter as long as the team succeeds. In roleplay, your choices as a player will have a much larger impact than what modifiers you have.

But whatever, to each, their own. Typically my belief that having good stats doesn't matter just means that I'm the one playing the character with poor stats, and that's fine with me.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, I almost always do stats first and base the concept on those stats. Having a 5 or an 18 in something just shapes the character so much that it can easily break a pre-made concept.

Actually, one of my recent campaigns started with a fellow player wanting to play a concept that requred above-average skill at archery and deception but then rolling 13,12,11,10,10,8. I ended up trading arrays with him (I had like an 18 and 2 16s).

He made a ranger who got along in roleplay by using high stealth and bluff checks and in combat by being able to dish out high damage. I made a fighter who got along in roleplay by being universally trusted by practically everyone and in combat by keeping everyone alive using heavy armor, positioning, protection style and the healer feat.

Personally, I don't really understand why people think power discrepancies are such a bad thing. In combat, its a team game and degree of individual contribution doesn't matter as long as the team succeeds. In roleplay, your choices as a player will have a much larger impact than what modifiers you have.

But whatever, to each, their own. Typically my belief that having good stats doesn't matter just means that I'm the one playing the character with poor stats, and that's fine with me.

Power discrepancies aren't a bad thing as long as everyone has their thing.

[CantigThimble]

Power discrepancies aren't a bad thing as long as everyone has their thing.

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me. Even if one character can do everything another can better than him he can't do it all at the same time and there are going to be opportunities to do interesting things.

[GlenSmash!]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me. Even if one character can do everything another can better than him he can't do it all at the same time and there are going to be opportunities to do interesting things.

I think it only becomes unfun when someone starts telling other people what they should or shouldn't do, but since that Table Captaining can happen without power discrepancies, that's probably a moot point.

[WereRabbitz]

I'm thinking for our next group I might ask the players to roll 3d6 for 3 of the stats and use the 4d6 system for 3. then place them how they wish. That way the chance of someone pulling out 3 or 4 great stats is greatly diminished and this puts the average value more inline with the 27 point buy in I believe.

What do you think?

[Sigreid]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me. Even if one character can do everything another can better than him he can't do it all at the same time and there are going to be opportunities to do interesting things.

I'll rephrase to as long as everyone gets to know their contribution matters.

[MaxWilson]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me. Even if one character can do everything another can better than him he can't do it all at the same time and there are going to be opportunities to do interesting things.

I can sort of think of one for me: when there's a large power discrepancy, and the guy playing the most powerful PC (e.g. level 20 and incredibly good stats and magic items when everyone else is level 8ish) thinks that he's the hero and in charge of the story, and the player is also a moron who doesn't know what to do with his power (using 9th level slots on Chromatic Orb and Fireball, true story, refusing to share information gained from his spells with the other players, etc.), that gets on my nerves enough to make me want to think about leaving, especially if the DM makes that PC central to game goals.

That's mostly just a problem with a player being a moron, but power discrepancy plays into it by (probably) feeding his perception that he's supposed to be important when in fact he is ineffective and annoying. If his PC were level 3 maybe he wouldn't do that, and even if he did it would be easier to write it off as just some moronic idiot who thinks he's important instead of getting frustrated by his terrible misuse of his own potential.

You might point out that this doesn't count because the problem player isn't actually playing a cooperative game at all, and you'd probably be right, but it's the closest I can come to a good example of what makes power discrepancies unfun for me in 5E.

[Waterdeep Merch]

So much of your power comes from your class that it just doesn't seem all that important if your stats are all that high. A rogue with expertise will still probably be better at their chosen skills/tools than you, even if they have terrible stats. A fighter can still use all weapons and armor, a wizard still has their spells, a barbarian can still get mad.

It's certainly nice to get a +3 in what you like doing a lot, but it's only a 15% competency boost, really.

[sophontteks]

For some classes and archtypes those stat boosts really are huge.
But there are classes and archtypes that don't care about stats.

I was forced to play rolled stats. Not a fan of it. We even did it twice and dropped the lowest. I still had awful rolls. So, I played a druid. They could care less.

[GlenSmash!]

For some classes and archtypes those stat boosts really are huge.
But there are classes and archtypes that don't care about stats.

I was forced to play rolled stats. Not a fan of it. We even did it twice and dropped the lowest. I still had awful rolls. So, I played a druid. They could care less.

I feel like I would like rolling for stats in one offs, but I get to play so rarely and I don't want to miss out on my wish fulfillment that I don't want to risk it.

[CantigThimble]

So I guess the main problems with power discrepancies are:
1) People enjoy doing powerful things. (nothing wrong with that, but there are other things that I enjoy more)

2) If your fellow players are jerks then there's very little you can do about in in-character.

[Anonymouswizard]

5E is really, really bad at equal ability though. If you roll all 18s and play a blaster pure Red Dragon Sorcerer 20 who loves Scorching Ray, and I roll 16/12/10/10/10/10 and play a cunning Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Divine Soul 17 who excels at both support and blasting, are your 18s really going to result in you having more impact on play than I am? Unlikely.

Player skill will always matter (and appropriately so). Part of player skill is knowing how to mitigate bad stats, either by playing a class that doesn't need high stats or by shrugging off your bad stats and playing the class your party needs (e.g. healer and summoner) without worrying overly much about the 5-10% degration in efficiency your non-ideal stats impose, relative to standard array.

Class choice and in-play decisions matter more than stats.

Sure, raw ability scores are never the full extent of a character, and can vary in importance. Ability Scores in 5e matter much less than Attributes in The Dark Eye, because in TDE every point of an ability score is a +5% increase in your chance to succeed at an ability check, and every single skill check consists of three ability checks, so it's a bad idea not to start with the full 100 points of Attributes. In my homebrew system every check is 'roll 1d20, try to get under Attribute+Skill+modifiers', so having high base Sttributes goes a long way to having a versatile character (I am considering an alternative system for rolling your Attributes, but if so rolling low will give extra Skill Points and rolling high will give you less). Although I've also used the GURPS method of nothing skills, so you note both the purchased ranks and the most common total rolled for them.

So yeah, in most games characters are made up of Attributes/Skills/Powers, and in D&D the last is traditionally the most important aspect of your character in the form of your class features (although this was downplayed in the pre-3e editions). Having played a lot of games which put a lot of focus on Attributes and Skills, I have an instinctive tendency to use them to guage power. I even put most of the power in Attributes and Skills in my homebrew, powers are generally there as an afterthought and normally just enhance skills (or give new ones for magic). But in 5e those lost points still matter, because a powerful build is still that slight bit stronger. I suppose that in 5e it's the case that good stats just don't make up for a bad build.

[Galactkaktus]

It's certainly nice to get a +3 in what you like doing a lot, but it's only a 15% competency boost, really.

+3 compared to +0 is not just a 15% competency boost. At level 1 with proficency in the skill.

Very Easy DC 5
100% vs 90% 100/90=1,1111 which whould be a 11,1% competency boost

Easy Dc 10
80% vs 65% 80/65=1,231 which whould be a 23,1% competency boost

Medium DC 15
55% vs 40% 55/40=1,375 which whould be a 37,5% competency boost

And it just gets more apparant the higher the DC but +3 is really not just 15% increased competency.

[Cynthaer]

I think for most people, a discrepancy may not be game-destroying, but it still mildly rankles if you're constantly just slightly worse at things than the people around you due to luck.

There's a lot of psychology that affects this, so (to take an easy example) it's not quite as simple as asking "is it unfun to have a lower to-hit bonus than a teammate?"

- If it's because one person's highest stat roll was a 13 and the other's was an 18, that's probably less fun. (Out of the player's control.)

- If both had "normal" rolls or used point buy, but one person intentionally chose a "non-optimal" race/class combo like a tiefling barbarian, that's probably fine. (Player's choice.)

- If you started with a mere "+4 vs +5" discrepancy, but the player with the +5 gets the first +1 magic weapon and makes the discrepancy bigger, that might be less fun. (Why didn't the DM try to reduce the difference instead?)

- If the lower stats still hit the "normal" baseline (i.e., started with a 16 after racial modifiers), it doesn't feel as bad if someone else has a "bonus". Having a 16 vs a 20 ("holy crap, nice roll") doesn't feel as bad as a 14 vs an 18 ("so you got extra and I didn't even get as good as point buy").

And of course if one person simply doesn't care about having lower stats, like several people in this thread, then that's great. Personal preferences obviously override general tendencies. I'm only talking here about broad trends.

[Stan]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me.

It depends on the size of the discrepancy and the type of game. Suppose one character had so much power that they were twice as strong as the rest of the party put together. Then their actions matter far more than everyone else's. If there is a disagreement on how to approach things, the powerful character can do their own thing and the rest can either cave in or do nothing. For everybody else, what's the real point in doing stuff if their actions don't really matter?

A difference in ability scores isn't going to cause that level of disparity. In 3e, the most optimized, questionably legal character in a party of nonoptimized martials can be nearly that level. In the past, DMs have allowed questionable options from Dragon that had effects on that level.

Games based on TV/movies/books that try to mimic the power discrepancies in those mediums without also incorporating the plot immunities and limits can have such problems.

[mephnick]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of any situation where a power discrepancy would make a cooperative game unfun for me.

Well in 3.5 full casters could summon multiple things that are better at front line fighting then your Fighter was at the same time as slinging spells. The Druid had an animal companion that was stronger than you. Would you really have fun being relegated to 4th best front liner by two non martial characters when that's what you built your character for? It's like being a benchwarmer on a good team. You're happy the team is winning but it isn't fun.

[nickl_2000]

I think this thread says it well enough

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?553945-Anonymous-Poll-have-you-quot-fudged-quot-the-rolls-on-stat-in-5e

[CantigThimble]

It depends on the size of the discrepancy and the type of game. Suppose one character had so much power that they were twice as strong as the rest of the party put together. Then their actions matter far more than everyone else's. If there is a disagreement on how to approach things, the powerful character can do their own thing and the rest can either cave in or do nothing. For everybody else, what's the real point in doing stuff if their actions don't really matter?

I'm just going to steal a quote from the Mistborn adventure game here:


One of the most beautiful experiences I’ve had in gaming happened when the group got beyond competing to see whose character was the toughest. When I was younger, we all worried about who was ‘winning’ or who had the highest level. Then, one game, a wise GM (or ‘Narrator’ as the role is called here) forced us to play with one character awesomely more powerful than the rest of us. Suddenly, it wasn’t about beating the other players — it was about working together to maximize the use of this character’s incredible abilities. The game became immensely fun.
It’s not always appropriate to play this way, but I strongly suggest not pay- ing too much attention to who gets the most Advancements or who’s the most powerful. In the end everyone will enjoy themselves much more that way.

In my experience I've found that this is really just true. If players don't see opprtunities for their characters to contribute when another character is more powerful then, and I really don't mean to be judgemental here, I think that's an attitude problem, not a power problem. I've been the guy who was half as powerful as other characters before, it's different, certainly, but it didn't stop me from having fun or contributing to the game.

[Stan]

It depends on the play style. Would you be ok with power discrepancies and pvp?

[CantigThimble]

Well in 3.5 full casters could summon multiple things that are better at front line fighting then your Fighter was at the same time as slinging spells. The Druid had an animal companion that was stronger than you. Would you really have fun being relegated to 4th best front liner by two non martial characters when that's what you built your character for? It's like being a benchwarmer on a good team. You're happy the team is winning but it isn't fun.

In that situation the goal cannot be to compete in terms of brute force so you need to select a new goal. Find a problem faced by your group that can be solved by something other than running up to its face and attacking it.

I mean, if the only thing to do in the game is fight enemies head on and the summoned creatures can handle it without difficulty then that just means that the party isn't actually being challenged at all. But if they are being challenged, then there are going to be problems you can figure out solutions to.


It depends on the play style. Would you be ok with power discrepancies and pvp?

I made sure to specify cooperative games for this reason, though I do enjoy asymmetrical battles as well. They're interesting tactically and everyone loves an underdog. (even if the underdog usually loses)


I think this thread says it well enough

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?553945-Anonymous-Poll-have-you-quot-fudged-quot-the-rolls-on-stat-in-5e

Where's the option for I only roll in front of others and Yes I have fudged? :smalltongue: Stats get fudged all the time in my groups, but with group approval.

[mephnick]

Find a problem faced by your group that can be solved by something other than running up to its face and attacking it.

But I chose a Greatsword Fighter because I want to solve my problem by running up to its face and attacking it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable not being satisfied with being a peon in a group of gods when I was told this was a heroic monster killer game. I don't know much about the Mistborn game, but I think that quote is way off base when being used to solve a D&D problem.

[CantigThimble]

But I chose a Greatsword Fighter because I want to solve my problem by running up to its face and attacking it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable not being satisfied with being a peon in a group of gods when I was told this was a heroic monster killer game. I don't know much about the Mistborn game, but I think that quote is way off base when being used to solve a D&D problem.

That's fair, but I would counter that if you have chosen to limit yourself to one method of problem solving then you're going to stop having fun every time that one method isn't viable. If you're willing to do that then so be it, but I think its much better to be flexible.

Sometimes you can solve problems by rushing them and hitting them in the face, other times you can solve problems by befriending the right people, bringing the right gear, paying attention to the map and noticing what others miss, causing a distraction before a fight, setting up an ambush, positioning yourself to limit enemy options and buying time, etc. etc.

This is why I say that power discrepancy making the game unfun is an attitude problem, not a power problem. If players have fixed expectations about what their character should be doing and how good they should be at it then they're going to get frustrated every time those expectations aren't met. So you can either pick a game that conforms to those expectations or change your expectations.

[MaxWilson]

That's fair, but I would counter that if you have chosen to limit yourself to one method of problem solving then you're going to stop having fun every time that one method isn't viable. If you're willing to do that then so be it, but I think its much better to be flexible.

Sometimes you can solve problems by rushing them and hitting them in the face, other times you can solve problems by befriending the right people, bringing the right gear, paying attention to the map and noticing what others miss, causing a distraction before a fight, setting up an ambush, positioning yourself to limit enemy options and buying time, etc. etc.

This is why I say that power discrepancy making the game unfun is an attitude problem, not a power problem. If players have fixed expectations about what their character should be doing and how good they should be at it then they're going to get frustrated every time those expectations aren't met. So you can either pick a game that conforms to those expectations or change your expectations.

I would speculate that Combat As Sport players may have more objections to power discrepancies than Combat As War players do, because in Combat As Sport you really can't do much at all besides run up and hit monsters in the face.

===============================================

So, out of curiosity: here's a fairly typical rolled character, in some ways a bit on the weak side.

Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 6, Cha 11

He's arguably stronger than a point buy character in some ways (Dex 16), and weaker than any legal 5E point buy character in others (Int, Wis, total stat mods). How many people here would not have fun at all playing this stat array if you rolled it up?

Does your answer change if you're allowed to rearrange the stats?

As for myself, I would enjoy this array vastly more than a point buy array, not just because of the 16 but also because of the 7 and 6. Being restricted to an 8-15 range on every stat of every character just feels cramped, to me.

[CantigThimble]

I would speculate that Combat As Sport players may have more objections to power discrepancies than Combat As War players do, because in Combat As Sport you really can't do much at all besides run up and hit monsters in the face.

Perhaps. Though it's hard for me to say just because I've really never gotten a clear idea of what combat as sport or combat as war are. I've been told that if you ever adjust a fight to be level-appropriate to the party then you're doing combat as sport (which would mean every game I've ever played is combat as sport) but I also hear things like this where if you do anything besides directly attack then you're doing combat as war (which means every game I've ever played is combat as war).

[MaxWilson]

Perhaps. Though it's hard for me to say just because I've really never gotten a clear idea of what combat as sport or combat as war are. I've been told that if you ever adjust a fight to be level-appropriate to the party then you're doing combat as sport (which would mean every game I've ever played is combat as sport) but I also hear things like this where if you do anything besides directly attack then you're doing combat as war (which means every game I've ever played is combat as war).

As I'm using the term, it's more about the scope of play. Quoting from the first page of the seminal thread:



I'm firmly on the "Combat as Sport" (CAS) side, with a penchant for flashy heroics. So yes, I like 4E (and the Feng Shui RPG). But now that I think about it, I've met a few "Combat as War" (CAW) players too. It definitely does explain a certain group of players who never warmed up to 4E.

I'm not quite sure how to appeal to both sides in one game. Both are deeply gamist, but they don't agree on what the game is. For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.

For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

How do you ever accomodate both? This isn't something that you can integrate by giving players spotlight who enjoy a certain game element. This is about how the DM sets up the entire game.

...

It occurs to me that this explains Ravenloft, and not just in the "do you like Horror" sense.

Ravenloft, as written, was clearly intended to be CaW. You're supposed to uncover the rampaging flesh golem, be helpless against it, fall back and research its weaknesses by clever observation, then walk in and stomp it.

You can't really do that in a 3E/4E "Appropriate Encounter Level" mindset.


Since CAW/CAS is a playstyle, and players have different preferences, a good DM is unlikely to run a pure CAS/CAW game because it is unlikely that all the players will have the same preference. If you've got some CAS players and some CAW players, well, you try to include elements of both. (And you may have other players who are dramatist or something instead of gamist, and consequently don't care about the scope of combat challenges, and you try to include elements of those things too.) So it isn't surprising to me that you've never played at a table which never has level appropriate encounters, nor at a table where you always simply attack.

But I suspect that people who play at tables who mostly fight whatever's in front of them, expecting that the DM wouldn't give them a challenge they weren't intended to beat in about three rounds... I suspect that these sorts of players will be the most frustrated with power disparities from heterogenous stats or heterogenous PC levels or heterogenous magic items or heterogenous class balance.

[mephnick]

How many people here would not have fun at all playing this stat array if you rolled it up?.

I'd enjoy it. I'm currently playing a Barbarian with 6 WIS. He strides forward confidently, completely ignorant of his surroundings, acts rashly and believes in a black and white world.

That aspect of the character is great fun to play..but I'm also really good at killing stuff which is why I chose Barbarian in the first place. I would not enjoy the former without the latter.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd enjoy it. I'm currently playing a Barbarian with 6 WIS. He strides forward confidently, completely ignorant of his surroundings, acts rashly and believes in a black and white world.

That aspect of the character is great fun to play..but I'm also really good at killing stuff which is why I chose Barbarian in the first place. I would not enjoy the former without the latter.

I could enjoy a 6 Wis Barbarian, but I would struggle to enjoy a 6 Str Barbarian unless I'm playing him as just a comedic character, because being strong (14+) is core to my concept of a Barbarian character, but being Wise is not.

[CantigThimble]

I'd enjoy it. I'm currently playing a Barbarian with 6 WIS. He strides forward confidently, completely ignorant of his surroundings, acts rashly and believes in a black and white world.

That aspect of the character is great fun to play..but I'm also really good at killing stuff which is why I chose Barbarian in the first place. I would not enjoy the former without the latter.

Query: If your character encountered an anemy that you could not kill (such as a werewolf while you didn't have a magical or silver weapon) would that stop you from enjoying the character and relegate you to waiting to enjoy the game until the other players dealt with it?

[GlenSmash!]

Query: If your character encountered an anemy that you could not kill (such as a werewolf while you didn't have a magical or silver weapon) would that stop you from enjoying the character and relegate you to waiting to enjoy the game until the other players dealt with it?

I know the question wast directed at me, but If I were the Barbarian in question I would grapple the heck out of that werewolf. Much better than just waiting for the other players to deal with it.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm just going to steal a quote from the Mistborn adventure game here:



In my experience I've found that this is really just true. If players don't see opprtunities for their characters to contribute when another character is more powerful then, and I really don't mean to be judgemental here, I think that's an attitude problem, not a power problem. I've been the guy who was half as powerful as other characters before, it's different, certainly, but it didn't stop me from having fun or contributing to the game.

You left out an important part, that the game is specifically set up to support that. It takes a lot (and I mean a lot) of Advancements to get to the point that one character specifically overpowers the others, unlike D&D3.5 where you can take over the martials at level one if you know what you're doing, and around level seven if you don't. Plus in the later time periods it's also really easy to get a niche, as Mistborn and full Feruchemists stop being a thing and each Misting does something unique the only real way to overshadow somebody at their specific element are either intentionally picking the same power as them or picking a power that invalidates their mundane focus (although there the two extra traits are nice). Also the game really doesn't focus on combat, I've found that players are more willing to suffer being the unawesome one in something when that thing doesn't take up 60% of the game.

[CantigThimble]

You left out an important part, that the game is specifically set up to support that. It takes a lot (and I mean a lot) of Advancements to get to the point that one character specifically overpowers the others, unlike D&D3.5 where you can take over the martials at level one if you know what you're doing, and around level seven if you don't. Plus in the later time periods it's also really easy to get a niche, as Mistborn and full Feruchemists stop being a thing and each Misting does something unique the only real way to overshadow somebody at their specific element are either intentionally picking the same power as them or picking a power that invalidates their mundane focus (although there the two extra traits are nice). Also the game really doesn't focus on combat, I've found that players are more willing to suffer being the unawesome one in something when that thing doesn't take up 60% of the game.

Dude, the story isn't about people playing mistborn, it's about people playing another game when Brandon Sanderson was younger. I've never even played Mistborn, just got the rulebook cheap, flipped through it and liked that story. And I've tried applying the lesson from it in D&D and it works fine, combat heavy or no.

[Pex]

So much of your power comes from your class that it just doesn't seem all that important if your stats are all that high. A rogue with expertise will still probably be better at their chosen skills/tools than you, even if they have terrible stats. A fighter can still use all weapons and armor, a wizard still has their spells, a barbarian can still get mad.

It's certainly nice to get a +3 in what you like doing a lot, but it's only a 15% competency boost, really.

Ability scores make a difference. You need to hit the monster to do your damage. The monster needs to fail its saving throw for your spell to work. In 5E a +1 difference is a big deal.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Ability scores make a difference. You need to hit the monster to do your damage. The monster needs to fail its saving throw for your spell to work. In 5E a +1 difference is a big deal.
They absolutely are, I'm just saying they aren't complete deal breakers here.

Enemy AC and saves are also heavily constrained in 5e. They aren't completely out of your league just because you have low modifiers, because so much of any attack/check/save has to come from the d20.

On the one hand, that means getting a plus at all feels great, and you'll notice it.

On the other, you can get by without it with luck and planning.

I first really noticed it on a wizard that only had a 14 Intelligence- I certainly didn't feel much different. I only encountered a save or attack that should've gone through under better circumstances once out of every twenty rolls. Some days, it just never happened.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dude, the story isn't about people playing mistborn, it's about people playing another game when Brandon Sanderson was younger. I've never even played Mistborn, just got the rulebook cheap, flipped through it and liked that story. And I've tried applying the lesson from it in D&D and it works fine, combat heavy or no.

Missing the point, that Mistborn is very much set up to make that notaproblem. The problem with it in other games is that it requires players to be on board with it (like effective horror gaming). I've been in both situations and it's fine, but it's actually solving a different problem ('winning' versus 'all must be of equal capacity').

A character stronger than everybody else is fine, if everybody agrees to it. Otherwise we get 3.X syndrome.

I hate that quote because it implies that people disappointed about playing weaker characters are being sore. But I've been in one too many games where I've felt useless because my character was significantly weaker, and that only got worse when I discovered that my character concept gave me an XP penalty (I in theory made up for it by gaining more money, but a player rolled well enough on a random table that it would have taken me about two RL years to catch up).

[Galactkaktus]

They absolutely are, I'm just saying they aren't complete deal breakers here.

Enemy AC and saves are also heavily constrained in 5e. They aren't completely out of your league just because you have low modifiers, because so much of any attack/check/save has to come from the d20.

On the one hand, that means getting a plus at all feels great, and you'll notice it.

On the other, you can get by without it with luck and planning.

I first really noticed it on a wizard that only had a 14 Intelligence- I certainly didn't feel much different. I only encountered a save or attack that should've gone through under better circumstances once out of every twenty rolls. Some days, it just never happened.

So since you didn't feel any difference between 14 and 16 INT just one out of 20 rolls why didn't you go for 12 INT? Should only be a difference from 14 int one out of 20 times. And when you got to 12 Int why not go down to 10 since that should only make a difference once every 20 rolls from 12. And when you've gotten to 10 why not go to 8 since that should only make a difference from 10 int once every 20 rolls. so why not go down to 6 no 4 no 2 well lets just screw int probably doesn't do anything anyways.

[Waterdeep Merch]

So since you didn't feel any difference between 14 and 16 INT just one out of 20 rolls why didn't you go for 12 INT? Should only be a difference from 14 int one out of 20 times. And when you got to 12 Int why not go down to 10 since that should only make a difference once every 20 rolls from 12. And when you've gotten to 10 why not go to 8 since that should only make a difference from 10 int once every 20 rolls. so why not go down to 6 no 4 no 2 well lets just screw int probably doesn't do anything anyways.
That's quite a bit of hyperbole, but actually- kinda, yeah. Your class features are way more important than your raw stats. I'll even be bold and say that some optimized multiclasses can exceed with 8's in every stat where an unoptimized mono-build with 18's in everything can't. And I think that's a good thing.

[GlenSmash!]

That's quite a bit of hyperbole, but actually- kinda, yeah. Your class features are way more important than your raw stats. I'll even be bold and say that some optimized multiclasses can exceed with 8's in every stat where an unoptimized mono-build with 18's in everything can't. And I think that's a good thing.

You'll need at least some 13s for those multiclasses though :smallbiggrin:

[Waterdeep Merch]

You'll need at least some 13s for those multiclasses though :smallbiggrin:
Well, there is that. You'll need a lenient DM.

I mean, a lenient DM that is still totally hardcore enough that they won't let you reroll your all-8's spread. But is still okay with relaxing multiclassing requirements.

That is a very specific amount of leniency.

[GlenSmash!]

Ability scores make a difference. You need to hit the monster to do your damage. The monster needs to fail its saving throw for your spell to work. In 5E a +1 difference is a big deal.

There are ways around that. Wildshape, Polymorph, Magic Missile, buffing allies, using the help action.

It's not my cup of Tea, but you can still contribute, maybe even have times to shine with low stats.

[GlenSmash!]

That is a very specific amount of leniency.

LOL.

I've heard of crazier DMs.

[Galactkaktus]

That's quite a bit of hyperbole, but actually- kinda, yeah. Your class features are way more important than your raw stats. I'll even be bold and say that some optimized multiclasses can exceed with 8's in every stat where an unoptimized mono-build with 18's in everything can't. And I think that's a good thing.

And everything you would exceed at with all 8's the same build with all 18's will do better.

[Waterdeep Merch]

And everything you would exceed at with all 8's the same build with all 18's will do better.
Certainly, but I've never seen a table where two people play the same build, either. It's ultimately a cooperative game- both players probably have characters that are extremely different at every level, in order to handle different things.

If everyone's just going to play the exact same character, sure, rolling would be unfair. It'd also be the only interesting thing about any of them.

[Galactkaktus]

Certainly, but I've never seen a table where two people play the same build, either. It's ultimately a cooperative game- both players probably have characters that are extremely different at every level, in order to handle different things.

If everyone's just going to play the exact same character, sure, rolling would be unfair. It'd also be the only interesting thing about any of them.

I never once said that people would play the same build just that the build would be bettter with all 18s instead of all 8s. So that is a red hering.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I never once said that people would play the same build just that the build would be bettter with all 18s instead of all 8s. So that is a red hering.
I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. All I was pointing out was that stats don't change the outcome of any event as much as your class abilities or the d20 roll itself, not that it doesn't have an effect at all. I don't see how pointing out that -3 is worse than +4 changes that. Of course it is, that's plainly obvious.

And even at this highly unlikely extreme, that's only a 35% change against a d20 roll.

[CTurbo]

I've played in a group with 2 Fighters. 1 started with a 14 Str and took feats at 4, 6, and 8 so he still had 14 Str at level 10. The other guy started with 16 str and bumped it to 20 by level 8. The first guy could DO more things with PAM and Sentinel but missed ALL the time. I bet he had around a 50% hit rate if I had to guess. The other guy couldn't DO as much but was extremely consistent with his attacks and you could count on him to hit most of the time. It seemed like he rarely missed. By level 10, the first guy was frustrated more times than not, while the second guy was more pleased with his character.

This is just one example. Yes if the first guy had a way to generate advantage for himself, it wouldn't have been so bad, but he didn't and that +3/-3 difference was very VERY noticeable.


In a different campaign where we rolled stats, everybody had much better than point buy arrays, but the War Cleric put his only 2 "low" scores(8 and 12) in Dex and Con and it ultimately made his character largely useless compared to the rest of the party.

[MaxWilson]

There are ways around that. Wildshape, Polymorph, Magic Missile, buffing allies, using the help action.

It's not my cup of Tea, but you can still contribute, maybe even have times to shine with low stats.

It's quite funny to imagine playing a wizard with an Int so low he actually gets SMARTER when he Polymorphs into an Int 7 Giant Ape.

[Pex]

They absolutely are, I'm just saying they aren't complete deal breakers here.

Enemy AC and saves are also heavily constrained in 5e. They aren't completely out of your league just because you have low modifiers, because so much of any attack/check/save has to come from the d20.

On the one hand, that means getting a plus at all feels great, and you'll notice it.

On the other, you can get by without it with luck and planning.

I first really noticed it on a wizard that only had a 14 Intelligence- I certainly didn't feel much different. I only encountered a save or attack that should've gone through under better circumstances once out of every twenty rolls. Some days, it just never happened.

If you can target an opponent's poor save it likely won't matter. Sometimes you have to or don't realize you are attacking a medium or strong save. There it makes a difference, even aesthetically. For an attack roll to damage though, every +1 matters always. Monster hit points are bloated. A miss isn't the most horrible thing ever, but when an attack roll is your main shtick it's an emotional punch in the gut. You don't know a monster's saving throws. You eventually learn a monster's AC. You will know when you miss by one.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Out of 3 groups, 16 PC's, I can think of one who rolled comically bad stats. 4D6 drop the lowest is the method of choice. In two groups we could rearrange as we saw fit.

[dragoeniex]

I was squirmy about rolling stats the first time (had only used standard prior) coming into the current campaign nine months ago. 4d6, drop lowest. "Okay, if that's how we're doing it," I told the DM. "But I tend to roll really high or really low, so I'm nervous..."

"Come on," he said. "It can't be that bad."

First roll was an 18.

"Huh. You might have to re-roll if you go over our cap."

Second roll was a 3.

"Nevermind, you're good."



End result: combined total was less than what standard array would have been, but my bard started with 20 charisma and the inability to open thick doors, so I'd say it worked out. Flipside, one of the other players rolled markedly higher than standard-- and rolled nothing below 11, nothing above 14. Jack of all stats, master of none.

[SociopathFriend]

We typically do 4d6 and drop lowest, reroll 1s; we only get a "new stat set" if our total falls under some certain number- though I don't know what it is. He just asks us to read them aloud and then does some math in his head.

I don't know how well that stacks up against point-buy. Though that DM crits like a motherf***** so as far as I'm concerned I will take any help I can get for stats. He's literally crit 5 times in a row before- using store dice too so nothing special about them. Half the time he doesn't even bring his own dice and he crits MORE than normal when he uses someone else's dice.

[Zalabim]

So there's a common idea that rolling stats is exclusively a tool of powergamers who aren't actually taking any risks by rolling stats because they can convince their DMs to let them reroll or default to point buy if they roll badly. I'm just curious how true that assumption is.
Powergamers always want to roll stats (or rather, should prefer to roll stats) is not the same proposition as stat rollers are always powergamers. This has been bugging me for days.

[Floogal]

So in this discussion about rolling stats, I'm not seeing much talk about HP rolls. Do most people roll around average from experience?

(Yes, I realize the OP mentioned point-buy, so HP probably want on their mind.)

[MaxWilson]

So in this discussion about rolling stats, I'm not seeing much talk about HP rolls. Do most people roll around average from experience?

(Yes, I realize the OP mentioned point-buy, so HP probably want on their mind.)

Powergamers take the average instead of rolling, because the expected value is higher.

For stats, the powergamer optimal strategy is less clear. Powergamers who don't feel obligated to roleplay low stats may do better under point buy (15,15,15,8,8,8, and put the low stats in e.g. Str/Int/Cha) especially if they're interested in moderately MAD classes. Powergamers who want to play SAD classes and/or who aren't willing to roleplay Int 8/Cha 8 and don't feel right outright ignoring Int 8/Cha 8 are typically better off under rolled stats.

The situation for HP is much simpler. You take the average, period, for every class.

[AvvyR]

https://imgur.com/biSjqvs
https://imgur.com/V422cLY

Yeah, never roll stats.

[Inchoroi]

The groups I DM for always roll for stats (with a minor change, which I'll explain in a second). We've done ability generation in every possible way, and the way we settled on has worked out pretty well, except for a single player. This player, the poor guy, is so unlucky. Unbelievably so, actually. Statistically unlucky. It got to the point that I started rolling his stats for him.

We do rolling like so:

You roll two sets of ability scores, doing the 4d6 drop lowest, and you are able to choose between either set (but can't mix and match, of course). If neither set has a total modifier of +4, then you get to reroll both. It makes for PCs that have slightly higher than average scores, but not grossly so. Works out well for us.

[Foxydono]

I have almost always used rolled stats, because I am a gambler and a powergamer. I want the possibility if rolling two 18's or something crazy like that. I also don't mind if some stats are low, that can make for an interesting character.

Although point buy is more fair, I find it boring. As for rolling being worse than standard array or point buy, well, that depends. I've rolled 3d6, 4d6 drop lowest, 5d6 drop lowest two and sometimes I could do it two or three times and pick the results I like best. Sometimes I roll for a specific stat and sometimes I roll and determine which roll goes for which stat. The first option can turn out horrible if you have to pick your race and class before rolling.

Tldr: it really depends on what method of rolling u use.

[slento]

I am definitely the most power gaming person in my group, but right now I'm playing as a wizard whose highest roll was a 12. I'm happy to play that because my goal is for everyone to have fun.

I get that sometimes people come out with unequal power, but I think rolling is much more interesting and it gives a chance of arrays other than 2 or three that point buy usually gives.

That's why I like the 24d6 drop lowest 6. After you determine your pool of dice everyone uses the same pool. They can put together combinations of three dice for each stat. Every one gets the same number of pips to use, and maybe some one will have two really high stats, but the rest of them will be terrible. If you want a high or low power campaign just add or subtract dice from the initial roll. Also you aren't stuck with totally average stats across the board. It gives an element of choice like point buy and also an element of luck like rolling

[MaxWilson]

https://imgur.com/biSjqvs
https://imgur.com/V422cLY

Yeah, never roll stats.

I dare you to turn those high rolls into a PC who completely outclasses any possible character I can make out of the low rolls.

I don't believe you can do it.

[The Robot Goat]

My parties have always gone with the standard 4d6 drop lowest, and it's worked out fairly well in the past. In regards to unequal party power level, it can be a problem, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. It can be frustrating to feel like you are less powerful than other party members, but statistically speaking it's not super likely that a player will roll stats low enough* to actually feel useless, and in that case I've always been of the mind to just let them re-roll, after all, it's just a game and we're all here to have fun. Of course, with 5e I've found that the classes don't overlap enough that it's too terrible if one player has a worse array than another, because they probably aren't doing the same thing, in other systems it might be different.

My games have also been very narrative based or very comedic, so lethality was not so much of an issue. If you played in a group that liked more dangerous encounters, than you might be worse off with rolled stats, idk.

*Like, genuinely bad stats. I'm not talking about having an 8 or two, or even a 6, I've had 6s before on characters that worked out really nicely. Still waiting for the day I finally roll a 3 for one of my stats.

[SociopathFriend]

I dare you to turn those high rolls into a PC who completely outclasses any possible character I can make out of the low rolls.

I don't believe you can do it.

Wouldn't the point of that be that you both make a relatively similar character and see if his does your job way better?
A low-stat Wizard is still going to be way better at doing a Wizard's job than a Fighter no matter how well stat'd.

[JoeJ]

Wouldn't the point of that be that you both make a relatively similar character and see if his does your job way better?
A low-stat Wizard is still going to be way better at doing a Wizard's job than a Fighter no matter how well stat'd.

The point is that a high stat fighter can't replace a low stat wizard or vice versa. Comparing otherwise very similar characters with different ability scores doesn't really tell you anything useful, because that's not very likely to be the situation at the table.

[Finger6842]

Rolling 4d6 drop the lowest is equivalent, on average, to a 30-point buy.
Rolling 3d6 is equivalent, on average, to a 17-point buy.

Slightly less than 2/3 of 4d6-drop characters will equal or exceed a 27-point buy. Slightly over 1/3 will be below that. That's the risk with 4d6. Odds favor a better character, but there's a big risk of a problematic one.

Only about 14% of 3d6 characters will equal or exceed a 27-point buy.

To calculate these equivalences and probabilities, I wrote the following Python program, which I am placing in the public domain. Feel free to use/modify/critique as you see fit. The basic logic of the program is as follows:
- The four_d_6_drop() function rolls 4d6 and drops the lowest value.
- The three_d_6() function rolls 3d6.
- The points_bought() function, given an ability score, calculates the points needed to obtain the score. Scores below 8 return a negative number. Scores of 14 or higher, including scores above 15, require two points per increment.
- The points_bought_character() function takes a die roller (e.g. three_d_6) as a parameter, creates a list of six scores, and calculates the total point-buy needed for that list. It then returns both the list and the total point-buy.
- The mean_points_per_character() function creates as many characters as you would like, and returns the average point-buy per character.
- The number_below_target() function again creates as many characters as you would like, but then reports the number whose point-buy is below a given target.

Here's an example of using the program to calculate the average point-buy:


>>> mean_points_per_character(1000, four_d_6_drop)
29.969
>>> number_below_target(27, 1000, four_d_6_drop)
369
>>> mean_points_per_character(1000, three_d_6)
17.273
>>> number_below_target(27, 1000, three_d_6)
857


import random

def four_d_6_drop():
scores = [random.randint(1, 6) for i in range(4)]
return sum(scores) - min(scores)

def three_d_6():
return sum(random.randint(1, 6) for i in range(3))

def points_bought(score):
return score - 8 + max(0, score - 13)

def points_bought_character(roller):
scores = [roller() for i in range(6)]
return scores, sum(points_bought(s) for s in scores)

def mean_points_per_character(n, roller):
characters = [points_bought_character(roller)[1] for i in range(n)]
return sum(characters) / len(characters)

def number_below_target(target, n, roller):
characters = [points_bought_character(roller)[1] for i in range(n)]
return len([c for c in characters if c < target])


Nice job with the calculations here, thanks. We typically roll 4d6 drop lowest and have 2 high stats, 2 low stats and 2 average. It makes interesting characters and power is the real straw man since it takes about 14 seconds for the DM to kill you regardless of stats if thats the goal :D

[MaxWilson]

Wouldn't the point of that be that you both make a relatively similar character and see if his does your job way better?
A low-stat Wizard is still going to be way better at doing a Wizard's job than a Fighter no matter how well stat'd.

That stats are no substitute for class is precisely the point.

Unless you're playing with a gazillion players or you have another player who is deliberately duplicating your concept, someone else's higher stats will not overshadow you. If the party already has enough fighters, make a wizard. If they already have enough wizards, make a front-line fighter (or Moon Druid) or an archer or a healer or a summoner or a spy or a diviner or any of a dozen different things that a party can never have too much of.

I ran an adventure last night with three Purple Dragon Knights (one level 12 with great stats, one level 7 with good stats, one level 6 with one 16 and the rest somewhat poor stats) and a Land Druid... all the PCs contributed materially to the party's success and had moments to shine. Honestly the standout was probably the level 7 Str 17 guy because even though he hardly did any damage, his Prodigy feat (Athletics +10 *) and judo moves were critical to locking down several major enemies (Young Black Dragon, Salamander, Glabrezu in three different fights) so everyone else could beat on them.

Everyone can find a niche in the party no matter how high anyone else's stats are.

* House rule is that odd ability scores give an extra +1 to ability checks but not saving throws or attack rolls, so that e.g. Str 17 is materially different from Str 16 and no stat boost is ever completely wasted. This applies to both (N)PCs and monsters.

[Pex]

* House rule is that odd ability scores give an extra +1 to ability checks but not saving throws or attack rolls, so that e.g. Str 17 is materially different from Str 16 and no stat boost is ever completely wasted. This applies to both (N)PCs and monsters.

I like this house rule.

[CantigThimble]

I like this house rule.

So do I. I'll probably use it.

[Anonymouswizard]

That stats are no substitute for class is precisely the point.

Honestly 5e would probably do better with dropping Ability Scores entirely. They're there as a holy cow, but really add nothing to the game. You could honestly combine the stats, saves, and skills together and not lose anything important (compared to editions like 2e, where almost everything that isn't combat or magic was some variation of 'roll under ability score'). Start proficiency at +4, increase it every three or four levels (so it tops out at +9 or +10), and then give various skills either half, full, or double proficiency. We'd lose the focus on having high stats, and players would instead place their full and double proficiency picks in skills and tools that benefit the character or party.

Although I'm also very against class skill lists, and have been since 3e. While it helps with archetyping it feels overly restrictive, especially as you'll have 90% of the archetype already from your class abilities (Background skills are a step in the right direction, but as a side effect I've discovered a few GMs unwilling to let you play altered or homebrew backgrounds, one I really want to use is Village Doctor which is just Folk Hero with Medicine substituted for Animal Handling or Survival).

[Kaliayev]

Exactly.

As much as I hate it, most campaigns these days are like Critical Role. One cast of characters assumed to survive the adventure for narrative consistency. Point-buy allows everyone to have an effective character and avoids haves and have-nots, which is important for characters that could last months up to years.

If you've been watching campaign two of CR, that assumption hasn't been validated. CR also uses rolled stats and I don't think I have ever seen the players routinely complain about their ASs, though I acknowledge they are less interested in the numbers than your average GitP reader. What matters is how your character responds to their talents and flaws, and Travis made Grog's low int one of the party's signature features. From the reddit FAQ:


4d6 drop the lowest (reroll all six if they total less than 70). Embrace low stats, as they are, quote, "RP-MONEY"




So, out of curiosity: here's a fairly typical rolled character, in some ways a bit on the weak side.

Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 6, Cha 11

He's arguably stronger than a point buy character in some ways (Dex 16), and weaker than any legal 5E point buy character in others (Int, Wis, total stat mods). How many people here would not have fun at all playing this stat array if you rolled it up?

Does your answer change if you're allowed to rearrange the stats?

As for myself, I would enjoy this array vastly more than a point buy array, not just because of the 16 but also because of the 7 and 6. Being restricted to an 8-15 range on every stat of every character just feels cramped, to me.

In the near future, I'm gonna be playing a half-orc dex fighter/rogue build that base rolled 8 in str and 6 in int. Despite the two low ASs, I'm looking forward to playing said character. If said character picks up a headband of intellect along the way, the rp swing will be very interesting.

[Willie the Duck]

Honestly 5e would probably do better with dropping Ability Scores entirely. They're there as a holy cow, but really add nothing to the game. You could honestly combine the stats, saves, and skills together and not lose anything important (compared to editions like 2e, where almost everything that isn't combat or magic was some variation of 'roll under ability score'). Start proficiency at +4, increase it every three or four levels (so it tops out at +9 or +10), and then give various skills either half, full, or double proficiency. We'd lose the focus on having high stats, and players would instead place their full and double proficiency picks in skills and tools that benefit the character or party.

When the subject of killing of sacred cows comes up, I tend to put forth the opinion that each edition only has so much leeway to kill sacred cows before it begins to alienate the player base. Therefore, any such killing ought to accomplish something relatively meaningful. A good example to me is that fireball (and other spells, but this one is iconic) no longer auto-scales in damage as the level of caster increases. This helped in the balancing of the spellcasting system (and allowed for the somewhat neat mechanic of upcasting). It was worthwhile, and ruffled at most a few feathers. I suspect eliminating attributes would be more rankling, so the payoff had better be large.

This sounds like a lot of work (and yes, killing of a sacred cow) to end up exactly where you would have been otherwise. Instead of the dumb barbarian with no skill and minimal stats rolling ~-1-+0 on a knowledge check because they have 8-10 int and no skill, then roll at +0 because they have no skill. Likewise, at level 20 the high-dex rogue with expertise in lockpicking used to roll +17 because of 2*6(prof)+5, and now rolls +18-20 (2* new proficiency). What has been accomplished?

Personally, I would prefer a movement towards the oD&D model of 'stats are there, they just don't mean all that much,' or maybe only for skill usage or the like.