Party Dynamic When One PC Rolled Much Higher Stats

[Grimmnist]

I am about to start a new campaign with a group of friends (we've been playing together for about a year), however the DM wanted us to roll for stats this time. I only started playing D&D in 5e so the variance from rolling stats is too high for my taste. Of our group of 4, one person rolled pretty average, 2 rolled quite low, and I had an 18, 16, 15, 13, 11, 10. Add onto this that I was already planning to try out the always contentious coffeelock, and this character is well above power curve for the group.

I am a bit of a powergamer (plez don't kink shame) so I'm not going to play a worse build or distribute my stats suboptimally, but I am acutely aware that D&D is a team game and that the end goal is for everyone to have a good time. I don't want the other players to resent me or feel like their character is useless because of good/bad luck, it is all of our first times rolling for stats and I think they may have been disappointed by the disparity (I know I would have been).

Since I am unwilling to mechanically worsen this character I am trying to think of ways to roleplay which will keep everyone engaged. I already have a number of good ideas such as being wowed by the fighter's strength, or having some status dynamic where a party member is my social superior. I don't think the party chemistry will become an issue, especially since I am actively thinking about how to avoid that, but I am interested in discussing and hearing suggestions.

Does anyone have examples of playing or playing with a much stronger character? Either times that went well or poorly?

What do people like about rolling stats? I am interested in hearing that perspective.

[MaxWilson]

Does anyone have examples of playing or playing with a much stronger character? Either times that went well or poorly?

What do people like about rolling stats? I am interested in hearing that perspective.

It usually doesn't matter. The classes are so different from each other that everyone always has a niche. It only matters if two players both make characters trying to occupy the same niche, and then are sensitive to small differences, e.g. if you have two GWM fighters and one has Str 15 while the other has Str 18, the Str 15 guy could feel bad--but if he instead makes a Heavy Armor Master Fighter 1/Abjuror X, he won't have anything to feel bad about.

What I like about rolling stats is that the randomness stimulates creativity, not just in builds but in the "shape" of a character's personality I can see in the stats. I also like the wider variety of characters that you get, and the challenge of making something useful out of whatever you get. Rolling all stats under 8 can be as much or more fun than rolling four stats at or above 16. Even the occasional very boring and average array like 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10 is kind of challenging in its very averageness--you COULD just make a Moon Druid, but maybe there's something else you could do instead like play a Diviner or a Mastermind. Long story short: rolled stats stimulates creativity and prevents the game from getting stale.

[Erys]

If your DM insist on rolling stats, having one character with better stats than the rest is just part of it. Unless the other players have as many single digits stats as you have above 12, it really should not impact much. Also, personally, I find coffeelocks interesting in theory but ultimately kind of weak. What you gain in unlimited resources you lose in raw power. (Remember, you get no spell slots (from the multiclass spell slot table) from your warlock class levels).

If you are seriously worried you are too OP, but unwilling to actually nerf you character down to the rest stat level- pick up a healer half and be a buff/heal guy; so instead of outshining everyone, you are there to life them up and help them be as awesome as you.

[MaxWilson]

Also, personally, I find coffeelocks interesting in theory but ultimately kind of weak.

I've never seen anyone actually bother with more than a few hours of short rests at a time--the whole idea behind "coffeelock" per se is spending days or weeks at a time not sleeping to accumulate tons of spell slots, and that's just ridiculous overkill IME. Nobody does that, nobody ever has a reason to regret not doing that.

In practice, getting a good AC (20ish + Shield) will have more impact on your character's power than theoretically unlimited spell slots will, especially given concentration limits. E.g. Dex 16 Con 16 Cha 18 Hexblade 2/Divine Soul X isn't terrible, and Forge Cleric 1/Fiendlock 2/Divine Soul X works too, and that goes double if your buddies have good spells that synergize well with Agonizing Repelling Blast, Grease/Web/Stinking Cloud/Evard's Black Tentacles/Spike Growth/etc. You won't dominate play but you'll be a valuable party member and you'll all have fun.

[Lord Vukodlak]

This is only really a problem if both characters also have similar builds. Back in 2nd edition I had this thief, only he was the second thief in the party and the first one rolled better stats in all categories. We also had a cleric and a wizard.
Wasn’t fun, so I let him die and rolled up a fighter. DM introduces him as reincarnate gone wrong on the dead thief. Even rolling on the table to determine the race. Zorr was loads of fun.

Zorr later joined a different campaign and was alongside another fighter but because we had similar stats and different skills neither felt the lesser.

[Grimmnist]

This is only really a problem if both characters also have similar builds. Back in 2nd edition I had this thief, only he was the second thief in the party and the first one rolled better stats in all categories. We also had a cleric and a wizard.

That calms a lot of my fears, no one else in the party is playing a similar role so I think it will work out fine.



What I like about rolling stats is that the randomness stimulates creativity, not just in builds but in the "shape" of a character's personality I can see in the stats. I also like the wider variety of characters that you get, and the challenge of making something useful out of whatever you get. Rolling all stats under 8 can be as much or more fun than rolling four stats at or above 16. Even the occasional very boring and average array like 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10 is kind of challenging in its very averageness--you COULD just make a Moon Druid, but maybe there's something else you could do instead like play a Diviner or a Mastermind. Long story short: rolled stats stimulates creativity and prevents the game from getting stale.

Thanks for giving these examples, it made me see the appeal and critically think as to which method I prefer and why. I still prefer the standard array, growing up I would play videogames, and now tabletop games, as an escape from the world (not that my life was particularly bad or anything). I really like the idea of a world where the random chance of your birth circumstances does not define who you are, but rather you can define yourself. Rolling stats seems like it adds a lot of depth to roleplaying, but I'm cool chilling in the shallow end because I am having fun here.

[Sigreid]

As was said earlier, just find out what the other party members are going to try to be good at, and build to be good at other things. It won't be a problem as long as you're not using better stats to take someone else's shtick.

That said, IMO, coffelock is not a good gimick because I wouldn't be interested in the extensive waiting around necessary for you to get the full effect from it.

[XmonkTad]

An extra +1/2 here or there wont make a colossal impact, and so having much better stats might not make that much of a difference in the end. Also, just because your character is really good and competent doesn't mean you'll necessarily outshine the rest of the party. And even if you do outshine them in some respects, you can still be a good sport about it, and they'll like to have you on their team.

[CTurbo]

I really really hate big party imbalances in power. This is why rolling for stats can really come.back to bite you in the butt. This is also why at my tables, everybody rolls for stats and anybody can choose anybody's rolls.

Having 1 super powered character in a group will cause conflict. I've seen it too many times, and it can make life hell on the DM having to build an encounter around trying to challenge that character while not being OP for the rest of the group.

That being said, if this is how it's going to be, l would personally at the very least pick an suboptimal race to play with. I'm with you that I don't intentionally want to nerf or gimp my character, but you also don't want to be TOO good either.

I'd recommend a Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Paladin that concentrates more on buffing your party or debuffing the enemy than anything else. Feats like Inspiring Leader are great to help boost the party.

[CTurbo]

A +2 difference in a stat can and will make a big difference. Yes it's more noticeable between two similar style characters, but still.

I played in a group where I was already a Fighter and we had a new guy join that also wanted to be a fighter. At level 4 he opted for PAM and I opted for the boring but effective +2 Str. At level 6 he went with Sentinel, and I maxed Str. From then on, it really felt like I always hit, and he always missed. Like other players would comment on it it was so apparent. I was a dual wielder and I had a very high hit rate, whereas he had the fancy PAM/Sentinel combo but missed all the time. He actually got frustrated and felt like his character wasn't effective because my "boring" character was so "good".

[TerryHerc]

A big difference in stats makes the biggest difference lower levels. However there will always be something one character cannot do that another character can, be it a class ability or a narrative point.

If the DM is doing an effective job, they should be presenting opportunities to all characters, and the imbalance in stats should not come up constantly. If they do, I would suggest the DM could find ways to boost the other characters in the sessions, so everyone can share the spotlight.

My preference is always to use the standard array, to avoid this issue altogether.

[Laserlight]

In my experience, the main difference is not in stats, it's in tactics. One archer rushes headlong into the midst of the enemy and gets hammered, the other archer takes cover and snipes one foe after another, it's not hard to figure out who gets the glory.

Put the 18 in CON and the 16 in your casting stat. No one is going to feel outclassed because you make CON saves and Concentration saves and have more HP.

Consider playing a support build. When I got back into D&D in 4e, my first character was vastly more effective than the rest of the group. I immediately retired him and brought in a Warlord, oriented toward healing, buffing, and giving the other guys more attacks. No one complained that I was too powerful at making them look good and giving them more attacks.

Edit: if you have any influence on it, suggest the DM let everyone use your stats.

[Particle_Man]

Use your powers to buff your allies and debuff (not kill (or at least not stealing a kill someone else is busy killing) your enemies, so that your fighter feels more awesome. Don't know the party composition of the others, but try to make them feel awesome too mechanically in addition to roleplaywise.

Don't steal spotlight time either. Let others have time to do their thing.

[CTurbo]

I'm a heavy believer of stats needing to be mostly balanced, but don't get me wrong, stats aren't everything. Optimization matters too as well as playstyle and experience.

I played in a 3 man party where we all rolled high. I put an 18 in my Barb's Con while the War Cleric put a 12 in his Con. He put a 16 in Int because he wanted to be smart, but at level 8 he was still sitting at 50hp while I had nearly twice as much. The 3rd player was a Sorc with less than 50. Made life hell on the DM trying to challenge me in combat without killing them.

On the flip side, I was a standard point buy Tempest Cleric and I frequently stole the show in the campaign. It was easy to steal the thunder. So bad l decided to make it melee heavy and do silly things like maximize the Wrath of the Storm damage sometimes instead of Shatter or Call Lightning.

[Zaharra]

It really depends on your players if anyone will care. I never care that someone else is mechanically better, even if they're better at the same things as me, because as long as I still get to play it's fun

Make a good friend character, support other characters interests, push the character who hasn't been getting as much spotlight time to the front, and then do the thing you plan to do well really really well. If you support your friends when they want to do their thing then they'll cheer your victories too. If you're a spotlight hog then people will resent you no matter what the mechanics

So yeah, be a good player, be a good friend and there's room for everyone to have fun

[MaxWilson]

I'm a heavy believer of stats needing to be mostly balanced, but don't get me wrong, stats aren't everything. Optimization matters too as well as playstyle and experience.

I played in a 3 man party where we all rolled high. I put an 18 in my Barb's Con while the War Cleric put a 12 in his Con. He put a 16 in Int because he wanted to be smart, but at level 8 he was still sitting at 50hp while I had nearly twice as much. The 3rd player was a Sorc with less than 50. Made life ---- on the DM trying to challenge me in combat without killing them.

Which goes back to Laserlight's point about tactics. It should be trivial to challenge the party as a whole without killing the sorc and the war cleric--just give them a tough encounter in close terrain where the barbarian can occupy the choke point while the cleric and sorcerer pour in fire (Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians, Hypnotic Pattern, Fire Bolt, etc.) from the back ranks. The war cleric can even choose to engage in melee and just disengage back when he starts to run out of HP. If the DM was having trouble challenging the barbarian without accidentally killing the cleric, it's not the fault of the stats, it's a fault in cleric's tactics.

[CorporateSlave]

What do people like about rolling stats? I am interested in hearing that perspective.

I've always hated the point buy system. I feel like it makes everything way too "cookie cutter." Everybody does the math, optimizes, and you end up with very asymmetrical characters with some maxed out stats and the rest dumped down to 8. Of course, you don't have to dump anything and can make a more balanced character with nothing great but nothing terrible if you want to...but unless ALL the players do this, you just end up with the same basic result as if you'd rolled stats and come out a little lower than everyone else. I don't think that every muscle bound fighter needs an INT and CHA of 8. But he's a hero. He's going to need that maxed 15 in STR and CON. And what's left over to make sure his DEX and WIS aren't too crap-tastic so he's got a fighting chance at Initiative and Fear saves.

The whole idea that point buy somehow keeps the party "power balanced" is ridiculous in my opinion. First of all, that concept from the get-go requires optimization applied fully to each character. As mentioned above, point buy with equal resources for all players all you want, but unless they all optimize the one or two who do will outstrip the one's who don't anyway. Any player who picks the "wrong weakness" tends to get spattered by the enemies who the DM has to upscale in order to challenge the fully optimized guy. Perhaps another way to look at this perspective...equal starting resources of 27 stat points does not in any way mean PC's will have equal abilities/strengths. As many have pointed out, different classes have different roles anyway. And you can take the same pile of bricks and lumber and build a crappy house or a quality one.

An extra +1 or +2 makes a difference sure, but not a game breaking one. I routinely skip ASI's in favor of feats that give my characters more interesting and varied options in and out of combat. I suppose every once and a while I miss something by 1 that I might have otherwise hit. But am I still effective overall? Yes! Am I still having fun? YES!

Besides, stats are only the starting line! Race/class/background/skill/feat/etc selection...not to mention roleplaying and tactics...are great game equalizers. Besides, an DM worth his/her salt will not just run a campaign that caters to the highest rolled stat character's strengths and mush the low rollers into the background. You really want everything equal and balanced? Then why are you still rolling d20?! Just take a 10 on all die rolls. Inflict average damage on all attacks.

I guess for me it boils down to this:

Point buy = boring, predictable, character construction.
Rolling stats = exciting, varied, character creation.

Roleplaying games aren't ever supposed to be boring! Just my opinion.

[Mercurias]

I don’t know that anyone in the group would care unless they’re going to the table wanting the be the best, the strongest, the greatest, and the person who always wins everything.

Besides, part of optimizing is making sure you optimize for a certain thing, like being the party face or healing. So long as you don’t go out of your way to make your friends feel bad or lessen the experience for them then any fuss they might want to make is on them.

tl;dr, You should be fine as long as nobody is being petty.

[MaxWilson]

I don’t know that anyone in the group would care unless they’re going to the table wanting the be the best, the strongest, the greatest, and the person who always wins everything.

Just make sure your stats don't mislead you into thinking you ARE this guy who's the best at everything and always wins. You're not. Monsters will kill you approximately as hard as they kill anyone else, if you give them the chance.

[Tanarii]

I regularly run T2 games with a mix of characters from levels 5-10. If the game can handle that amount of disparity (theoretically a x2.5 power difference), and it easily can, then it can handle maximum likely difference in rolled stats without issue.

Psychologically it might be a different matter. The campaign I run has rotating parties. So as your character gets close to the top of the Tier, they'll be more powerful in the party, and when they first enter they'll be weaker. And players run multiple characters (although not in the same session). As I type this up, I can see where that would lower the psychological "it's not fair" aspect.

[MaxWilson]

I regularly run T2 games with a mix of characters from levels 5-10. If the game can handle that amount of disparity (theoretically a x2.5 power difference), and it easily can, then it can handle maximum likely difference in rolled stats without issue.

Psychologically it might be a different matter. The campaign I run has rotating parties. So as your character gets close to the top of the Tier, they'll be more powerful in the party, and when they first enter they'll be weaker. And players run multiple characters (although not in the same session). As I type this up, I can see where that would lower the psychological "it's not fair" aspect.

+1 for character trees, as described: player chooses which PC to play on a per-adventure basis. It fixes a LOT of problems with group dynamics, from "unfair" stat rolls to "useless" magical item finds to the psychology of PC death/integrating the replacement PC into the group.

[Pex]

Why is it whenever there's rolling stats DMs have a fear, metaphorically speaking, of letting a player reroll? Of course there's an inherent luck factor and you don't reroll until you get multiple 18s or whatever. However, if a player's array is poor just let him reroll. It takes nothing away from the player who rolled a good array. Another option is fiat a change. The array is a starting point. When player 1 has 18 16 15 14 11 10 and player 2 has 15 13 13 11 10 8, the DM can tell player 2 make any one score an 18.

There is also multiple arrays. Have players roll two or my preference three arrays then choose one. With three arrays one will likely be so poor forget it, and the other two have their pros and cons. One has an 18 and 16 but also 8 and 9. The other has 16 and 15 but the two lowest scores are 12 and 10. Maybe you get lucky and have an overall good array 17 16 14 13 11 10 with racial modifiers making it superb.

I know the rules say you roll once. I don't care for that rule just as I don't care for Point Buy absolutely forbidding an 18.

[MaxWilson]

Why is it whenever there's rolling stats DMs have a fear, metaphorically speaking, of letting a player reroll?

This is one of the issues character trees solve. If you've got one PC already with Str 20, you don't mind so much having another character with Str 16, or even lower. The low stats guys provide context that make the high stats guys even more impressive.

I've seen players jump at the chance to roll 3d6 in order in exchange for starting at level 5 instead of level 1d3. I suspect they would've been less eager to do so if they could only have one PC, ever, until they current PC died or retired permanently.

[Ganymede]

You and your friends could neatly fix this problem by playing Fortnite together instead.

Otherwise, I don't see a fix; you identified the problem, a bunch of solutions to it, then said you'd never try those solutions. Unless you are willing to try some of your proposed solutions that you ruled out, your best bet is to find something else fun to do with your friends.

[Grimmnist]

You and your friends could neatly fix this problem by playing Fortnite together instead.

Otherwise, I don't see a fix; you identified the problem, a bunch of solutions to it, then said you'd never try those solutions. Unless you are willing to try some of your proposed solutions that you ruled out, your best bet is to find something else fun to do with your friends.

Sorry, fortnite is a bit too complicated for me. I just want to smear chocolate fingers on my friend's d20 while upcasting witch bolt.

[MeimuHakurei]

Put that 18 in Charisma, pick up Half-Elf so it's now a 20. Make the 15 and 13 one higher so you have 16 Con, 16 Dex, 14 Wis and 11/10 Str/Int (you can put the 14 into one of those if you care more about your skills on that attribute). Build your Sorlock as you normally would.

If you feel that the high stats are disruptive to the table, tell the other players and be willing to demonstrate how it can be a problem.

[Pelle]

Why is it whenever there's rolling stats DMs have a fear, metaphorically speaking, of letting a player reroll?

Usually it's because the other players will think it's unfair. They lose their feeling of luck if the other players get to piggyback on their good rolls.

Or it's because the DM wants the characters to be around a certain power level statwise, and allowing rerolls will shift the power level upwards (someone always has the worst stats, and wants a reroll).

I prefer just using the standard array. Keeps it fair and easy for everyone. However, if the power level statwise of the characters don't matter, I would much rather prefer having the players just decide their stats instead of rolling randomly. That's completely fair, and makes it clear that it's the players responsibility to make it fun. If they decide on having all 18s or randomize it somehow, it's up to them.

As for one player having much better stats than the other, it doesn't have to be a problem at all, but that depends on the other players if they care or not, and what they care about.

[Tanarii]

Or it's because the DM wants the characters to be around a certain power level statwise, and allowing rerolls will shift the power level upwards (someone always has the worst stats, and wants a reroll).Or it's because you (the player) chose to roll, so you get to stick with the consequences of your choice.

Only applies in campaigns where the players get the default choice between standard array and rolling, of course.

[Pelle]

Or it's because you (the player) chose to roll, so you get to stick with the consequences of your choice.


But why would a DM make it a choice in first place? If there's no good reason for wanting to offer that choice, why not allow more rerolls?

Most of the time that choice is offered because the players want
a fun gamble at character creation, although it will impact their experience for however many sessions. You can change it from being a gamble, by letting players with bad stats reroll for example, but then it's not really a fun gamble anymore...

[Zaltman]

As a build on the idea of avoiding overlapping party roles, it also comes down to players sharing the spotlight. Avoiding role overlap helps that, but the key to a good game with PCs of different levels and stats (or any game for that matter) is players making sure everyone has chance to shine. It does not matter if your PC's Persuasion skill is better, if another PC wants to try to convince the old miner that he should draw them a map of the abandoned mine, then let her.

[CTurbo]

The main goal is for everybody at the table to have fun. I'm not going to let somebody reroll over and over and over again until they get an array they like, but I'm not going to force somebody to play with really really bad stats either. There is always a solution that pleases everyone.

I've seen people ask for rerolls because what they rolled was TOO good. The very last time my table rolled up stats, and remember at my table anybody can use anybody's rolls, the best array didn't get picked by anyone.

I think at least 99% of the time, the players would rather be on equally footing. I've never played with somebody who just wanted their character to be better than everybody else's.

[Pelle]

The main goal is for everybody at the table to have fun. I'm not going to let somebody reroll over and over and over again until they get an array they like, [...]

Isn't that a contradiction? I know you wrote something more, I just think people could reflect a little more on why and how they do it. If there are good reasons for why it's not fun to allow rerolling over and over, that's fine though, but if not just allow players to decide the stats.

[MaxWilson]

But why would a DM make it a choice in first place? If there's no good reason for wanting to offer that choice, why not allow more rerolls?

Can you clarify what is the "it" you are referring to here that should not be a choice? Are you saying players should be forced to roll, or that rolling should not be an option?

As for why a DM would offer the choice between rolling and point buy, well, fundamentally it's because they're both in the PHB and it's simpler to minimize the number of house rules. It's the same as why a DM would offer the choice between playing a fighter or a druid or a rogue or a wizard or a warlock, etc.

At a more concrete level, allowing rerolls without actually completing character creation first could lead to stat inflation via misperceptions about what ability scores actually mean. Someone might think that Str 15 is "not really very strong". My preferred solution in this case is to say, "You can finish creating the character with bad stats, then donate it to me the DM as an NPC, then roll up 5 more NPCs on 3d6-in-order, and then roll up a new PC." This gives players some concrete intuition of the bell curve and what "average" people are like and prevents them from feeling like only a PC with multiple 18s is special, but at the same time they don't have to play any PC whom they find truly disappointing. It solves the stat inflation problem IME.

[Clone]

I had a similar scenario occur with one of my current games. I rolled bonkers stats but decided to support the part to the best of my abilities.
By going Valor Bard and picking Utility, Debuff and Buff spells along with by Bardic inspiration, I'm constantly helping the party and letting them shine. When I cast spells its either to heal them (I'm the only healer) or to make them shine brighter.
Whenever there is a social situation I always encourage the others to RP and lead the charge while I'm their charismatic hype man with expertise in persuasion in and deception. Finalise that with a Stone of Spell Storing I got so I can take the role of counterspeller or something else if needs be, allowing the Wizard to Fireball and Fear to their heart's content.

As the tank who does all of this, there hasn't been any complaints of my stats at all as I don't try to steal the show and I build the others up, while everywhere I excel is far more subtle than doing tons of damage or leading a political debate. Its all about how you use the stats.

[Keravath]

A +2 difference in a stat can and will make a big difference. Yes it's more noticeable between two similar style characters, but still.

I played in a group where I was already a Fighter and we had a new guy join that also wanted to be a fighter. At level 4 he opted for PAM and I opted for the boring but effective +2 Str. At level 6 he went with Sentinel, and I maxed Str. From then on, it really felt like I always hit, and he always missed. Like other players would comment on it it was so apparent. I was a dual wielder and I had a very high hit rate, whereas he had the fancy PAM/Sentinel combo but missed all the time. He actually got frustrated and felt like his character wasn't effective because my "boring" character was so "good".

Interesting anecdote ... but I think it is mostly the luck of the dice causing a perceived imbalance ... the math is that the PAM/Sentinel build has more attacks and more attack opportunities while only losing a 10% chance to hit.

At tier 2 ... proficiency is +3 and stat is +3 for one character and +5 for the other in your example.

Target AC 15
1) To hit = 9 = 60%
2) To hit = 7 = 70% = hits 1.17 times more often

Target AC 18
1) To hit = 12 = 45%
2) To hit = 10 = 55% = hits 1.22 times more often

Target AC 21
1) To hit = 15 = 30%
2) To hit = 13 = 40% = hits 1.33 times more often

Target AC 24
1) To hit = 18 = 15%
2) To hit = 16 = 25% = hits 1.67 times more often

The PAM build has more use for reaction opportunity attacks. The 20 str build WILL hit more often ... between 1/6 and 2/3 more frequently depending on the target AC (unless the AC is really high).

However, your experience speaks more to the variability of dice rolling than to any factor contributed by the +2 from str. Consider that the 20 str character will typically roll two to hit die/rd. A typical combat lasts 3-5 rounds. You only roll 6 to 10 d20s to hit in every combat. The PAM character might roll 9 to 15 times. Over 10 fights this becomes 60 to 100 die rolls in one case and 90 to 150 in the other. Assuming fair dice, each result should be rolled 3 to 5 times on average ... but that isn't how probability works. Each die roll may or may not come up ... you could roll 200 times and not roll a single 20. The odds are admittedly against it but it happens. The point I am making is that in your game, the character with PAM+Sentinel rolled below average in those cases where it was most noticed while your character rolled above average ... giving the reality that in your game the increased strength was better than the feats. However, it has nothing to do with the mechanics ... only the dice you and your friends rolled at the time.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can say that it does pose a major issue with classes that perform with multiple roles. Tempest Clerics, Paladins, Hexblades, etc.

I had a Tempest Cleric in our party once, her average score was about a 10.5 - 11. Her Constitution modifier was +0 (11), her spellcasting modifier was +1 (12). She took one hit and took 6 damage. She took another hit and took 10. She would have died immediately on the spot if the DM didn't decide to take pity on her and retcon the attack.

On the flipside, I was an Arcane Trickster with an average stat of 15-16. The game felt like a breeze, I controlled most out-of-combat scenarios, and it was a blast.

So it does make a big difference sometimes, but notably it makes the biggest difference with melee spellcasters and at lower levels.

[MaxWilson]

I had a Tempest Cleric in our party once, her average score was about a 10.5 - 11. Her Constitution modifier was +0 (11), her spellcasting modifier was +1 (12). She took one hit and took 6 damage. She took another hit and took 10. She would have died immediately on the spot if the DM didn't decide to take pity on her and retcon the attack.

Nitpick: nothing about this scenario changes though if her spellcasting modifier was +4 (18), and very little changes if her Con were 14 instead of 11. All this means is that first-level characters are kind of fragile.

I agree though that MAD characters gain more benefit from high stats--arguably the primary benefit of rolling high is getting to play archetypes that don't work as well when you roll low. If I rolled three 18s, it would feel like a complete waste to play a Moon Druid--I'd rather make that once-in-a-lifetime array into a Monklock.

[CTurbo]

Interesting anecdote ... but I think it is mostly the luck of the dice causing a perceived imbalance ... the math is that the PAM/Sentinel build has more attacks and more attack opportunities while only losing a 10% chance to hit.

At tier 2 ... proficiency is +3 and stat is +3 for one character and +5 for the other in your example.

Target AC 15
1) To hit = 9 = 60%
2) To hit = 7 = 70% = hits 1.17 times more often

Target AC 18
1) To hit = 12 = 45%
2) To hit = 10 = 55% = hits 1.22 times more often

Target AC 21
1) To hit = 15 = 30%
2) To hit = 13 = 40% = hits 1.33 times more often

Target AC 24
1) To hit = 18 = 15%
2) To hit = 16 = 25% = hits 1.67 times more often

The PAM build has more use for reaction opportunity attacks. The 20 str build WILL hit more often ... between 1/6 and 2/3 more frequently depending on the target AC (unless the AC is really high).

However, your experience speaks more to the variability of dice rolling than to any factor contributed by the +2 from str. Consider that the 20 str character will typically roll two to hit die/rd. A typical combat lasts 3-5 rounds. You only roll 6 to 10 d20s to hit in every combat. The PAM character might roll 9 to 15 times. Over 10 fights this becomes 60 to 100 die rolls in one case and 90 to 150 in the other. Assuming fair dice, each result should be rolled 3 to 5 times on average ... but that isn't how probability works. Each die roll may or may not come up ... you could roll 200 times and not roll a single 20. The odds are admittedly against it but it happens. The point I am making is that in your game, the character with PAM+Sentinel rolled below average in those cases where it was most noticed while your character rolled above average ... giving the reality that in your game the increased strength was better than the feats. However, it has nothing to do with the mechanics ... only the dice you and your friends rolled at the time.


Both Fighters in question had a reliable bonus action attack(PAM vs TWF) so the PAM Fighter only had the edge in reaction attacks. No way the PAM guy got +5 extra attacks per combat. Probably +2 to 3 on average at best.

I get what you're saying those. On paper, the difference is only 10% which shouldn't be THAT noticeable, but it was.

[JNAProductions]

Haven't read the whole thread, but here's the biggest advice I can give:

Talk to the other players and DM. Doesn't matter what we say, it matters what THEY say.

With that out of the way!

So long as everyone has good stats, it doesn't really matter if one person has GREAT stats. Like, let's say I have 16 16 13 12 10 8. I'm a good character, I can contribute just fine. Then, someone else has literally the same statline except two points higher in every stat. That's not a big deal-I can still contribute. But, let's say he has that same statline, and I have 12 10 8 8 6 4. I will NOT be happy, because my character will struggle to contribute. I don't care if he has 27 point buy or better, I won't have fun because I'm the one sucker in a group of adventurers.

[MaxWilson]

Both Fighters in question had a reliable bonus action attack(PAM vs TWF) so the PAM Fighter only had the edge in reaction attacks. No way the PAM guy got +5 extra attacks per combat. Probably +2 to 3 on average at best.

I get what you're saying those. On paper, the difference is only 10% which shouldn't be THAT noticeable, but it was.

The main thing is to take note of how often the PAM fighter missed by exactly 1 or 2. If he missed by more than that, Str 20 instead of Str 16 wouldn't have helped him, it was purely about the dice.


Haven't read the whole thread, but here's the biggest advice I can give:

Talk to the other players and DM. Doesn't matter what we say, it matters what THEY say.

With that out of the way!

So long as everyone has good stats, it doesn't really matter if one person has GREAT stats. Like, let's say I have 16 16 13 12 10 8. I'm a good character, I can contribute just fine. Then, someone else has literally the same statline except two points higher in every stat. That's not a big deal-I can still contribute. But, let's say he has that same statline, and I have 12 10 8 8 6 4. I will NOT be happy, because my character will struggle to contribute. I don't care if he has 27 point buy or better, I won't have fun because I'm the one sucker in a group of adventurers.

It also matters a lot whether the players talk to each other during character generation. If I know the 18 18 15 14 12 10 guy is going to play a Paladin/Warlock, then I can make my 12 10 8 8 6 4 guy into a Moon Druid and be perfectly happy. But if I make a Thief, and it turns out the 18 18 15 14 12 10 guy made an Arcane Trickster, then I'm more likely to be unhappy because some of the things I was planning on supplying to the party are now sort of redundant. (The Arcane Trickster guy is probably also a bit unhappy too.)

Poor teamwork isn't really a stat problem but it can exacerbate stat problems, and good teamwork can mitigate stat problems.

[Keravath]

It usually doesn't matter. The classes are so different from each other that everyone always has a niche. It only matters if two players both make characters trying to occupy the same niche, and then are sensitive to small differences, e.g. if you have two GWM fighters and one has Str 15 while the other has Str 18, the Str 15 guy could feel bad--but if he instead makes a Heavy Armor Master Fighter 1/Abjuror X, he won't have anything to feel bad about.

What I like about rolling stats is that the randomness stimulates creativity, not just in builds but in the "shape" of a character's personality I can see in the stats. I also like the wider variety of characters that you get, and the challenge of making something useful out of whatever you get. Rolling all stats under 8 can be as much or more fun than rolling four stats at or above 16. Even the occasional very boring and average array like 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10 is kind of challenging in its very averageness--you COULD just make a Moon Druid, but maybe there's something else you could do instead like play a Diviner or a Mastermind. Long story short: rolled stats stimulates creativity and prevents the game from getting stale.

I agree that randomness can stimulate creativity. However, not all sets of random stats are even remotely fun to play.

Your 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10 might be a fun role-playing challenge for some folks but for most I suspect it would be role playing hell over the lifetime of the character at least until they died off. They can't hit well with weapons, their DC is too low to be very effective with spells, their dex is low so their initiative and AC are both poor and they don't have the strength for heavy armor unless they are a dwarf. In order to be effective they will have to choose a single stat dependent class and they will have to use all their ASI to boost that specific stat.

The problem is that while this character is struggling to be minimally effective with their "rolled" stats ... another player who was luckier might start with a 20 in their primary stat ... will hit more often .. land their spells more often ... and will generally be far more effective at everything they may care to attempt. Usually, this will mean one PLAYER enjoying themselves far more than another while sitting at the same table and this is a situation I would try to avoid since it just isn't very much fun.

So, in my opinion, rolled stats can be fun for those who roll well ... and can be a sinkhole for folks who don't.

The design of 5e has reduced the impact of stat discrepancies between characters. There are a lot of good builds that can be effective with a single stat .. and the difference between 16 and 20 isn't that large .. so effective characters can be built in a very wide range of ways and can be built to emphasize role playing or other character traits with high rolls in secondary stats if you happen to roll well (intelligent paladins and barbarians, charismatic fighters, wizards or monks etc). However, again in my opinion, the DM needs to impose some constraints or rules on the rolling system so that good/bad luck at character creation doesn't lead to a bad play experience at the table.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nitpick: nothing about this scenario changes though if her spellcasting modifier was +4 (18), and very little changes if her Con were 14 instead of 11. All this means is that first-level characters are kind of fragile.

I agree though that MAD characters gain more benefit from high stats--arguably the primary benefit of rolling high is getting to play archetypes that don't work as well when you roll low. If I rolled three 18s, it would feel like a complete waste to play a Moon Druid--I'd rather make that once-in-a-lifetime array into a Monklock.

With a high power spellcasting modifier, she could have felt more comfortable on the back line despite being a melee-oriented subclass. With 2 more HP, she would have been Dying rather than Dead.

That +2 to HP translates to a 25% increase in how much damage she could have taken at level 1.

At level 2, this translates to a 32% difference.

At level 20, a +2 Con mod translates to taking 42% more damage (93.5 avg health vs. 133.5).

The Tough feat provides the exact same amount of HP as a +2 Constitution modifier bonus. Consider that for a moment. Having a +2 difference in a stat is the equivalent of having an extra feat that someone else doesn't get.

[MaxWilson]

I agree that randomness can stimulate creativity. However, not all sets of random stats are even remotely fun to play.

Your 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, 10 might be a fun role-playing challenge for some folks but for most I suspect it would be role playing ---- over the lifetime of the character at least until they died off. They can't hit well with weapons, their DC is too low to be very effective with spells, their dex is low so their initiative and AC are both poor and they don't have the strength for heavy armor unless they are a dwarf. In order to be effective they will have to choose a single stat dependent class and they will have to use all their ASI to boost that specific stat.

More importantly, they don't have any outstanding features. I'd rather play S 10 D 10 C 11 I 8 W 6 C 10 than S 10 D 10 C 11 I 10 W 9 C 10, just because the former gives me a better sense of the character's personality. Not that you couldn't make it work either way by injecting some personality that doesn't come from the stat rolls at all--e.g. make him a Charlatan with a nagging mother-in-law who always disrupts his schemes--but having more to work with is better than having less to work with.

The other criticisms you make don't strike me as a serious concern. Dex has minimal impact on initiative anyway, and AC isn't the best primary defense. I could make my Charlatan a Wild Magic Sorcerer who relies mostly on partial cover and Expeditious Retreat to stay alive, and tosses Careful Webs and Twinned Polymorph to help the party, and it wouldn't really matter very much that his Charisma was only 10 (though he would lean heavily on Enhance Ability (Charisma) and Deception proficiency to make his fraudulent schemes work).

Hmmm. Actually, this guy is starting to sound a lot like Harry Wormwood, Matilda's dad (from Roald Dahl's books or the Broadway musical), especially the Int 8 Wis 6 version. Maybe I would actually play this guy.


The problem is that while this character is struggling to be minimally effective with their "rolled" stats ... another player who was luckier might start with a 20 in their primary stat ... will hit more often .. land their spells more often ... and will generally be far more effective at everything they may care to attempt. Usually, this will mean one PLAYER enjoying themselves far more than another while sitting at the same table and this is a situation I would try to avoid since it just isn't very much fun.

Can you give a concrete example of a what you'd do with your starting 20 that would make me not have any fun playing Harry Wormwood? [insert braying laugh]

[Keravath]

Both Fighters in question had a reliable bonus action attack(PAM vs TWF) so the PAM Fighter only had the edge in reaction attacks. No way the PAM guy got +5 extra attacks per combat. Probably +2 to 3 on average at best.

I get what you're saying those. On paper, the difference is only 10% which shouldn't be THAT noticeable, but it was.

Yep .. which is what makes me suspect that it was the dice rolling that made the two characters seem more uneven rather than the builds themselves. Yes, the TWF character should hit a bit more often with the 20 str ... however, the PAM+Sentinel picks up a couple of useful reaction attacks.

The damage from the halberd would be d10+3 = 8.5 on average while the short swords would be d6+5 = 8.5 also. The polearm butt is only 5.5 so the dual wielder would have an edge on the bonus attack damage but there isn't much difference in total damage and the PAM fighter has a 10' reach.

Overall, they both seem pretty balanced (which is one of the very nice features of 5e .. balance is much better than earlier editions).

[Keravath]

More importantly, they don't have any outstanding features. I'd rather play S 10 D 10 C 11 I 8 W 6 C 10 than S

Can you give a concrete example of a what you'd do with your starting 20 that would make me not have any fun playing Harry Wormwood? [insert braying laugh]

Nope :) None at all. I don't think YOU would have any problem playing Harry to much comedic effect in a game with an all 20's goddess in the lead role. However, the impact of the difference in stats between CHARACTERS has far more to do with the specific PLAYER and how it might impact their participation and sense of usefulness to the group which will be different for every player.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Having 1 super powered character in a group will cause conflict. I've seen it too many times, and it can make life hell on the DM having to build an encounter around trying to challenge that character while not being OP for the rest of the group.



While I don't deny this happens, it's not a necessary result. In fact, with normally healthy parties, I doubt it's enough to cause serious tension. In other words, if a party splits or fights over this they were probably going to split or fight over any number of things.

The key as others have said is to not steal the spotlight. I play in a party where we rolled and our Goliath rogue has a 20 Str, 18, Dex and like 15 or 16 Cha since level 1 I think. We don't resent him for it because he can pull off some amazing stunts that really help the party. He's a team player who doesn't spend his time trying to steal the show. In the same way, I'm a wizard and the only magic user. I can do things that make the rest of the party look inept in many circumstances, but I don't always handle encounters "my way." I often defer to someone who has a different idea of how to approach the situation. So the key is playing to make others look good rather than making yourself look good. Be good to your party and they'll be good to you. This is a huge rule in improv groups and it applies directly to D&D as well. You don't even have to focus on buff spells. Just do a lot of things that help your teammates look great and support their ideas when they bring them to the table.

[MaxWilson]

As a build on the idea of avoiding overlapping party roles, it also comes down to players sharing the spotlight. Avoiding role overlap helps that, but the key to a good game with PCs of different levels and stats (or any game for that matter) is players making sure everyone has chance to shine. It does not matter if your PC's Persuasion skill is better, if another PC wants to try to convince the old miner that he should draw them a map of the abandoned mine, then let her.

I just want to highlight (and agree) with this bit because it is so important. Yes, teamwork matters and you should leverage each other's abilities effectively--but not to the extent of funneling all actions through the guy with the highest mechanical bonus, or never splitting the party. Real people don't pause in the middle of a conversation with the old miner to ask Fred the Charismatic to ask the old miner to draw a map--they just say, "Hey old guy, can you draw a map?" Fred might get involved if the miner balks and needs some obvious coaxing, but for the most part PCs should be encouraged to act naturally, and anyone should feel free to attempt anything they can think of. This leads to the best experience for the players.

[MaxWilson]

Nope :) None at all. I don't think YOU would have any problem playing Harry to much comedic effect in a game with an all 20's goddess in the lead role. However, the impact of the difference in stats between CHARACTERS has far more to do with the specific PLAYER and how it might impact their participation and sense of usefulness to the group which will be different for every player.

I agree that it's very much an acquired taste. Thanks for clarifying. When I said, "What I like about rolling stats is that the randomness stimulates creativity," I was answering the OP's question about what I like about rolling, not claiming that everyone would like it the same way I do.

As an aside: Harry wouldn't be strictly comic relief. I expect him to be a valuable member of the team too, from a tactical standpoint. (He will also get them into trouble too, so he needs to provide enough value to be more than just dead weight.) Twin Polymorph, Careful Web, Twin Haste, Fireball, Disguise Self + Deception + Enhance Self, Major Image, Mage Armor for the Moon Druid, maybe even the occasional Fire Bolt... all of these things are part of what he will bring to the table. Just don't expect him to do anything but hide behind cover when giants are throwing boulders at the party. ("I'll be there in a jiffy. Just got to, er, fix my bootlaces first. [braying laugh] Don't wait up.")

[Sigreid]

Bottom line for me is I've only seen the disparity be a problem when the player with the higher stats used those stats to bully and diminish the other party members. And that guy is going to be that guy no matter what.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Bottom line for me is I've only seen the disparity be a problem when the player with the higher stats used those stats to bully and diminish the other party members. And that guy is going to be that guy no matter what.

This exactly. Otherwise it shouldn't be a problem because that person with high stats will help the rest of the party succeed at what they do.

[MaxWilson]

Bottom line for me is I've only seen the disparity be a problem when the player with the higher stats used those stats to bully and diminish the other party members. And that guy is going to be that guy no matter what.

I've also seen it be a problem when the guy with the high stats/levels/items uses his position to attempt to take a leadership position in the party, and fails miserably because the player is incompetent. To me that's annoying because it breaks my suspension of disbelief: "This guy can't possibly be an experienced adventurer with Int 20. He's a moron."

But that would be true I guess no matter what stats everyone else rolls.

[Sigreid]

I've also seen it be a problem when the guy with the high stats/levels/items uses his position to attempt to take a leadership position in the party, and fails miserably because the player is incompetent. To me that's annoying because it breaks my suspension of disbelief: "This guy can't possibly be an experienced adventurer with Int 20. He's a moron."

But that would be true I guess no matter what stats everyone else rolls.

I think those are often the same player.

[MaxWilson]

I think those are often the same player.

Heh. You're probably right.

[Grimmnist]

Thanks for all the tips. Just to give a little more context the party is: high stat sorlock(me), melee cleric w/ average stats, minotaur fighter with low roll, wizard with low roll.

Two pieces of advice that stood out to me (from several people) are that it's fine as long as I don't have the same role in the party as someone else, and to focus on buffing the other members. My PC is the only high charisma (and dex) and the only ranged dps so I shouldn't be stepping on any toes with that. I have also decided to go Divine Soul sorc so I can share some of that coffee with the party, I should be able to have a buff up every fight (Bless and Aid in particular should help with others' low con), and hell I'm a bard main I'm used to playing a support role.

Someone also posted not to killsteal, which I like to think I would figure out on my own but good to get a reminder.

[Sigreid]

I don't really get the kill steal thing. When my group plays, we want the opponents to die as quickly and efficiently as possible. As such, we regularly have one player finish a kill another player started with high fives all around.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for all the tips. Just to give a little more context the party is: high stat sorlock(me), melee cleric w/ average stats, minotaur fighter with low roll, wizard with low roll.

Two pieces of advice that stood out to me (from several people) are that it's fine as long as I don't have the same role in the party as someone else, and to focus on buffing the other members. My PC is the only high charisma (and dex) and the only ranged dps so I shouldn't be stepping on any toes with that. I have also decided to go Divine Soul sorc so I can share some of that coffee with the party, I should be able to have a buff up every fight (Bless and Aid in particular should help with others' low con), and hell I'm a bard main I'm used to playing a support role.

Someone also posted not to killsteal, which I like to think I would figure out on my own but good to get a reminder.

Hmm. Knowing what your party is like, I'm tempted to say, "Don't focus on buffing the party after all--they're going to be relying on you and the minotaur to do the damage while they buff you." Thought of course it also depends on how the wizard is played/what specialty she chooses.

(Focusing on debuffing enemies might not be a terrible idea though, e.g. a Careful Hypnotic Pattern to disable a bunch of enemies so that the minotaur can more easily GWM power attack them and the cleric and wizard can get some distance.)

Anyway, you should be fine, have fun with your group!

[Tanarii]

But why would a DM make it a choice in first place? If there's no good reason for wanting to offer that choice, why not allow more rerolls?

Its the 5e default rules. Player chooses beyween standard array and rolling.

[OverLordOcelot]

I honestly don't get the point of using 'roll for stats' if you're going to do rerolls or have angst if someone rolls well. The reason to use dice over a stat array or point buy IS the randomness, if getting results that aren't similar is a problem then why roll in the first place? I'm not a big fan of rolled stats because you tend to have issues like this where players get upset that someone rolled higher and you can't just make up a character on your own, you have to have witnesses to the rolls, but if I am rolling them and get lucky then I'm going to use them to make an effective character. If the other players want randomness but are going to be pissy if I'm doing well, I doubt it's the kind of group I'd want to hang around.

Then again, I personally rarely get upset at other players doing well with their character; I have more of an issue with characters that don't pull their weight. Once in an AL game I was in a party with a barbarian who did some kind of weird defensive build using one-hander and shield with medium armor, medium dex, and low strength bonus that also used reckless attack without rage up at the same time. I don't know what they were trying for, but they clearly didn't get it, and I felt annoyed when they came up, did like 3 and 5 damage on their two reckless attacks, then went down to easy enemy hits since they weren't resistant to anything. Something like that annoys me much, much more than 'Joe with the high stats is chopping up the dire wolf'. Same thing with 'kill stealing', as a player I want people to focus fire so that enemies go down, if my character wants to be the one to get in the last blow then I'll use 'stealing' as the start of an in-character rivalry instead of getting mad at the player.

[KorvinStarmast]

Its the 5e default rules. Player chooses beyween standard array and rolling. Just to be pedantic, the order of operations/priority is roll or if you think that's too much bother standard array. (Yes, I am picking the fly poop out of the pepper here ...)

You generate your character’s six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice and record the total of the highest three dice on a piece of scratch paper. Do this five more times, so that you have six numbers. If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. If I am not going to roll, I'd rather not use the array (and I went into some detail discussing that elsewhere) but instead go to the Variant: Point Buy. This allows one to customize ability scores to fit a particular character plan/concept.

Variant: Customizing Ability Scores
At your Dungeon Master’s option, you can use this variant for determining your ability scores. The method described here allows you to build a character with a set of ability scores you choose individually. You have 27 points to spend on your ability scores. {an so on}
The standard array doesn't give me as much room to work as point buy, if we are not going to roll.

[Pex]

I honestly don't get the point of using 'roll for stats' if you're going to do rerolls or have angst if someone rolls well. The reason to use dice over a stat array or point buy IS the randomness, if getting results that aren't similar is a problem then why roll in the first place? I'm not a big fan of rolled stats because you tend to have issues like this where players get upset that someone rolled higher and you can't just make up a character on your own, you have to have witnesses to the rolls, but if I am rolling them and get lucky then I'm going to use them to make an effective character. If the other players want randomness but are going to be pissy if I'm doing well, I doubt it's the kind of group I'd want to hang around.

Then again, I personally rarely get upset at other players doing well with their character; I have more of an issue with characters that don't pull their weight. Once in an AL game I was in a party with a barbarian who did some kind of weird defensive build using one-hander and shield with medium armor, medium dex, and low strength bonus that also used reckless attack without rage up at the same time. I don't know what they were trying for, but they clearly didn't get it, and I felt annoyed when they came up, did like 3 and 5 damage on their two reckless attacks, then went down to easy enemy hits since they weren't resistant to anything. Something like that annoys me much, much more than 'Joe with the high stats is chopping up the dire wolf'. Same thing with 'kill stealing', as a player I want people to focus fire so that enemies go down, if my character wants to be the one to get in the last blow then I'll use 'stealing' as the start of an in-character rivalry instead of getting mad at the player.

It's an acknowledgement of the luck factor. It's not perfect. Your ability scores matter for the math of the game. If they're too low your character won't function. PCs don't have to be the same. It's enough that all are at least decent enough.

[MaxWilson]

Then again, I personally rarely get upset at other players doing well with their character; I have more of an issue with characters that don't pull their weight. Once in an AL game I was in a party with a barbarian who did some kind of weird defensive build using one-hander and shield with medium armor, medium dex, and low strength bonus that also used reckless attack without rage up at the same time. I don't know what they were trying for, but they clearly didn't get it, and I felt annoyed when they came up, did like 3 and 5 damage on their two reckless attacks, then went down to easy enemy hits since they weren't resistant to anything. Something like that annoys me much, much more than 'Joe with the high stats is chopping up the dire wolf'.

To quote Niven and Pournelle, "think of it as evolution in action."

[Laserlight]

It also matters a lot whether the players talk to each other during character generation. If I know the 18 18 15 14 12 10 guy is going to play a Paladin/Warlock, then I can make my 12 10 8 8 6 4 guy into a Moon Druid and be perfectly happy. But if I make a Thief, and it turns out the 18 18 15 14 12 10 guy made an Arcane Trickster, then I'm more likely to be unhappy because some of the things I was planning on supplying to the party are now sort of redundant. (The Arcane Trickster guy is probably also a bit unhappy too.)


Truth. My current character was going to be a very petite woman, cleric, STR build, who talked to her doll as if it were alive. Except the Arcane Trickster said his schtick was talking to his pocket (which became Pockets, a ferret Familiar, when he got the spell) and the next player said her concept was a waif who was a devout paladin with 18STR. And nobody wanted to be the Face. Fortunately I was at the end of the table, so I had a minute to scrap my whole character concept and come up with Heavenly Feather, Exalted of the Air Aspect, DEX tempest cleric and diplomancer. Which has worked out well.

[Tanarii]

Just to be pedantic, the order of operations/priority is roll or if you think that's too much bother standard array. (Yes, I am picking the fly poop out of the pepper here ...):smallbiggrin:



If I am not going to roll, I'd rather not use the array (and I went into some detail discussing that elsewhere) but instead go to the Variant: Point Buy. This allows one to customize ability scores to fit a particular character plan/concept.
The standard array doesn't give me as much room to work as point buy, if we are not going to roll.
Sure. But like all variants, variant point buy is a straight power increase. Not everyone wants that. But it's definitely popular, and I've got nothing against inherently against it.

Regardless, the answer to the question "why would a DM use player choice between rolling and standard array" is still: that's the base rules.

No claim it's somehow superior, that's just why I Went There, and why a reasonable DM might as well.

[Reynaert]

I honestly don't get the point of using 'roll for stats' if you're going to do rerolls or have angst if someone rolls well. The reason to use dice over a stat array or point buy IS the randomness, if getting results that aren't similar is a problem then why roll in the first place?

Because there is a large grey area between 'completely random rolling' and 'point buy' and for a lot of players the sweet spot is somewhere in that grey area.

They want a bit of randomness/spread but they don't want the extreme outliers like 'one player rolled a lot better than the others' or 'nothing above a 13'.
Which is very simply fixed by allowing rerolls in those circumstances.

[Randomthom]

You can reduce the element of randomness while still retaining some fluctuation with a few custom methods and tailor them easily to your game;

Peak-stat + managed random
Give everyone a "high stat" (you decide what is good for your game) e.g. a 16.
They then roll the other 5 stats using a method that can at-best replicate that high stat. 6+2d4 is a solid choice as it averages at 11 but can produce 8-16.

16 11 12 16 9 11 was my result with this just now.

[Pelle]

Can you clarify what is the "it" you are referring to here that should not be a choice? Are you saying players should be forced to roll, or that rolling should not be an option?


"It" is instuting the rule of "choose standard array, or roll randomly and keep the results no matter". I am saying if a player don't like that rule, the DM should have a reason for why it's a good idea to follow it. In your next paragraph you described one such reason, simplicity. If there are no reason other than "just because" however, why not let the player be happy instead? If the group has good reasons for forcing rolls, or forcing arrays, or letting players just decide, the group should just decide to do that instead.



At a more concrete level, allowing rerolls without actually completing character creation first could lead to stat inflation via misperceptions about what ability scores actually mean. Someone might think that Str 15 is "not really very strong". My preferred solution in this case is to say, "You can finish creating the character with bad stats, then donate it to me the DM as an NPC, then roll up 5 more NPCs on 3d6-in-order, and then roll up a new PC." This gives players some concrete intuition of the bell curve and what "average" people are like and prevents them from feeling like only a PC with multiple 18s is special, but at the same time they don't have to play any PC whom they find truly disappointing. It solves the stat inflation problem IME.

I guess it works, but looks very passive agressive. Players can choose to play whatever stats they want, but have to do lots of tedious tasks first. Why not just let players play whatever they want, you are clearly able to handle it since you allow the possibility?


Its the 5e default rules. Player chooses beyween standard array and rolling.

But why should you use the default rules, particulary if players aren't happy about it? I can see plenty good reasons personally. And those are the reasons for why you don't allow rerolls, not because "it's the rules". You don't need to follow rules that don't work for your group, so "it's the rules" is not an argument. "Because of ... it's best that everyone follows these rules" however, that's an acceptable response when someone asks.

[Pelle]

Because there is a large grey area between 'completely random rolling' and 'point buy' and for a lot of players the sweet spot is somewhere in that grey area.

They want a bit of randomness/spread but they don't want the extreme outliers like 'one player rolled a lot better than the others' or 'nothing above a 13'.
Which is very simply fixed by allowing rerolls in those circumstances.

There are lots of ways to limit that those outliers can happen. You can use randomization methods that ensure everyone will have the same average, you can just change the distribution so that it's not possible to get too much variation, or you can specify the conditions for rerolling in advance (like reroll if this much lower, or below a certain standard).

All of those remove the fun gamble which players like to take though, so it's not as popular. And deciding to allow rerolls after seeing the rolls also diminishes the fun lucky gamble aspect.

[CTurbo]

There are numerous ways to get the randomness of rolling while helping to ensure the rolls don't turn out too bad(or good). Most of the time having everybody roll twice and letting them choose solves it. Having everybody roll and letting anybody pick anything definitely solves it.

I've seen too varying stats be an issue multiple times, but never while I was DM.

[MaxWilson]

"It" is instuting the rule of "choose standard array, or roll randomly and keep the results no matter". I am saying if a player don't like that rule, the DM should have a reason for why it's a good idea to follow it. In your next paragraph you described one such reason, simplicity. If there are no reason other than "just because" however, why not let the player be happy instead? If the group has good reasons for forcing rolls, or forcing arrays, or letting players just decide, the group should just decide to do that instead.

I guess it works, but looks very passive agressive. Players can choose to play whatever stats they want, but have to do lots of tedious tasks first. Why not just let players play whatever they want, you are clearly able to handle it since you allow the possibility?

I should clarify, based on your first paragraph, that if a player doesn't like their rolls I also let them fall back to point buy. But no rerolling is allowed, only character donation followed by new character generation, and I will absolutely *use* the NPCs you donate to me. (If you think Bob the Str 14 fighter is useless, well, I don't, and I'm happy to add him to the campaign somewhere.) If you think character generation is a tedious task you're probably playing the wrong game.

As for your final question, I already answered that: to prevent stat devaluation/inflation by giving players concrete experience with bell curves. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of "let you choose whatever stats you want," but I feel that rolling has given good results and I don't really want to mess with it, especially since no one has a problem with it. In the scenario you postulate where players are unhappy rolling I can certainly imagine shrugging and saying, "Okay guys, make whatever characters you want, with whatever stats you want, whatever levels you want, and whatever magic items you want. I'll create a short set of adventures designed for PCs of levels 3, 7, 13, and 18, and you can pick whichever ones you want, narrating in between each one what happens to your character in between and how your character changes." I've never found it necessary to do that but it's not like I have a *problem* with it.

Don't ask "why not?" if you're not prepared to listen to answers why not.

[Pelle]

Don't ask "why not?" if you're not prepared to listen to answers why not.

Sorry? I saw your reasons, and if players accept it it's fine for me. But since it from the outside comes off as a passive agressive way of signaling that you don't really want players to do it, why not let the players play whatever they want without having to jump through your hoops to do it instead? It's just a suggestion, because unless you know positively otherwise, I suspect it really works because players don't want to waste time on it, not because of the bell curve experience. It's not like players don't know that they are well above the average of 10.5, that's what they want. And not everyone subscribe to the notion that the whole population of characters can be described with a 3d6 distribution either, but I guess it doesn't matter if it does in your world.

As for playing the wrong game; one can enjoy making one's own PC, without enjoying spending time on making 5 npcs for the DM just because one rolled bad stats.

[OverLordOcelot]

Because there is a large grey area between 'completely random rolling' and 'point buy' and for a lot of players the sweet spot is somewhere in that grey area.

The thing is, your choices are not 'simple 3-18 rolls' and 'point buy', there are many, many other options. You can make restricted rolls for stats (10 + 2d4), roll for stats then have point buy adjust them to be in a particular range, roll for points for point buy, roll stats and then adjust as you want, and a host of other things that give some illusion of randomness but not a significant amount of actual randomness.


They want a bit of randomness/spread but they don't want the extreme outliers like 'one player rolled a lot better than the others' or 'nothing above a 13'.
Which is very simply fixed by allowing rerolls in those circumstances.

Rerolls just add a 'whine at the GM' metagame to character creation that generally rewards players who are most willing to say they don't like their rolls rather than try to make what they rolled work. Rewarding that behavior does not appeal to me at all. And rerolls don't fix the issue of a player rolling too well unless the players are willing to say 'nah, this character is too good, I want to suck more'. But if a player is willing to decide to lower their stats, why require the dice at all? Just let them pick the stats or do something like 'use roll the dice for an idea and then adjust as you see fit'. I would much rather have an honest set of rules for creating stats than the "roll the dice, but if you whine enough you get to reroll them, and if you roll too well we will passive-aggressively resent you if you don't decide to reroll to something worse" that so many people favor.

[MaxWilson]

Rerolls just add a 'whine at the GM' metagame to character creation... I would much rather have an honest set of rules for creating stats than the "roll the dice, but if you whine enough you get to reroll them, and if you roll too well we will passive-aggressively resent you if you don't decide to reroll to something worse" that so many people favor.

Wow, that sounds really toxic. Condolences.

[Keravath]

Thanks for all the tips. Just to give a little more context the party is: high stat sorlock(me), melee cleric w/ average stats, minotaur fighter with low roll, wizard with low roll.

Two pieces of advice that stood out to me (from several people) are that it's fine as long as I don't have the same role in the party as someone else, and to focus on buffing the other members. My PC is the only high charisma (and dex) and the only ranged dps so I shouldn't be stepping on any toes with that. I have also decided to go Divine Soul sorc so I can share some of that coffee with the party, I should be able to have a buff up every fight (Bless and Aid in particular should help with others' low con), and hell I'm a bard main I'm used to playing a support role.

Someone also posted not to killsteal, which I like to think I would figure out on my own but good to get a reminder.

Interesting choices :)

I just wanted to comment that you can get anything to work in a party ... high stats won't prevent folks playing nice together.

However, I just wanted to point out that your character choices may strongly overlap the contributions from the cleric and the wizard.

As a divine soul/ hexblade sorlock ... you ...
- have access to the entire cleric spell list ... anything the cleric does, you will likely do better ... heals, spirit guardians, spiritual weapon etc ... you will be pretty equal on bless ... but either one of you can bless most of the party AND you will get a couple of slots back on a short rest making you generally a better choice for it. If you start variant human, take resilient con and the devils sight invocation you will be able to resist dropping concentration better and still see in the dark.
- comparing to the wizard ... you will be using eldritch+agonizing blast as your goto for ranged damage ... compared to the wizards firebolt ... with your high charisma you will do significantly more damage. If the wizard has poor stats, I can't see him being anywhere close to melee so it will be a direct comparison of the sorlock spells vs wizard.

The best way, in my opinion, to keep things interesting would be to take the 2 level warlock dip early so that at level 5 you are a 3rd level sorcerer and 2nd level warlock. This way, your highest spell casting level will always lag either the cleric or wizard by one level ... you will be casting 2nd level spells when they have access to third. I think this aspect will give both the cleric and wizard good opportunities to contribute their higher level spells in a significant way while you can provide direct damage and lower level spell support. The wizard will be able to drop a fireball or the cleric use spirit guardians for a couple of levels before you gain those abilities too.

[Misterwhisper]

It depends on party makeup.

If you have a party of:

Wizard
Barbarian
Rogue

then those 3 are not really going to be stepping on each others toes much at all and if one of them has much higher stats, it probably won't bother the others.

However, if the party was

Sorcerer
Wizard
Paladin
Cleric

If one of the wiz/sorc rolled much better stats than the other, I can definitely see it being annoying.

That has happened to me MANY times in the past, mainly because I suck at rolling stats.

[MaxWilson]

It depends on party makeup.

If you have a party of:

Wizard
Barbarian
Rogue

then those 3 are not really going to be stepping on each others toes much at all and if one of them has much higher stats, it probably won't bother the others.

However, if the party was

Sorcerer
Wizard
Paladin
Cleric

If one of the wiz/sorc rolled much better stats than the other, I can definitely see it being annoying.

That has happened to me MANY times in the past, mainly because I suck at rolling stats.

Caveat: there are many different kinds of wizards and sorcerers, so this would apply primarily if you had two casters trying to occupy the same niche, not just the same class. E.g. two blasty sorcerers, or two crowd-control-focused Enchanters. Wouldn't be so much of an issue if you had e.g. a high-stats Enchanter and a mediocre-stats tanky Forge Cleric 1/Necromancer X. (Also, multiple wizards get to copy spells from each other's spellbooks, which has advantages but can increase the chances of niche overlap, leading to this conflict.)

[blackseven]

I realize it's all personal preference, so I post with that truth in mind.

I really do not like random rolling at all. Using Marvel Cinematic Universe as a barometer, I see the range of characters that random rolling allows to be from Captain America to Happy Hogan. More people will be closer to Cap (due to the way rolls work) but the unlucky will be Happy. Incidentally I'd put standard array at Black Widow.

I, personally, don't want to dedicate months of my time being a mechanically third rate member of a team. Yes I know that the argument is that with great RPing and brilliant tactics I can still be a memorable character, but that's not something I would choose. Gaming is escapist fun for me, and working extras hard to make up for being below average is something im trying to escape from in real life. Enforcing rolled stats on me would really make me feel like I'm drawing lots to see if I get hobbled before the game even begins.

I also think there are sometimes undesirable side effects for others as well but maybe I'll put them in another post.

[MaxWilson]

I realize it's all personal preference, so I post with that truth in mind.

I really do not like random rolling at all. Using Marvel Cinematic Universe as a barometer, I see the range of characters that random rolling allows to be from Captain America to Happy Hogan. More people will be closer to Cap (due to the way rolls work) but the unlucky will be Happy. Incidentally I'd put standard array at Black Widow.

Happy must be waaaaay more powerful than I thought he was.

-Max

[blackseven]

Happy must be waaaaay more powerful than I thought he was.

Happy is the dude who rolled 10 8 8 7 7 5 (for the scale in my analogy.) I'd put cap at straight 18 before modifiers.

Addressing that ndetail aside I feel I don't understand your response to my overall point.

[MaxWilson]

Happy is the dude who rolled 10 8 8 7 7 5 (for the scale in my analogy.) I'd put cap at straight 18 before modifiers.

Addressing that ndetail aside I feel I don't understand your response to my overall point.

Clarifying:

An intelligently-played 5th, 10th, or 20th level PC with 10 8 8 7 7 5 is amazingly powerful compared to anything I've ever seen Happy do on-screen. I don't read comics though.

Moon Druid is the classic way to play those stats, but other valid ways to play (without being hampered much by stats) include Diviner, Necromancer, Rogue of some sort, Cavalier, Shepherd Druid, and party-oriented Divine Soul. Can Happy turn himself into a T-Rex and disembowel a giant? Can he nuke a dozen orcs into oblivion with a Fireball? Can he bind elementals and demons to his will and force them to fight for him? I suspect he can't.

There are things you can't do with 10 8 8 7 7 5 including multiclassing, but there's still a lot of things you can do, and those things are pretty powerful.

-Max

[blackseven]

True. But im working harder to get lesser results than someone wth standard array or god stats. Which is fine if that's what one wanted. But I feel mandatory rolling often forces one to heavily use system mastery and exploits to not be an utter embarrassment to the party if they get unlucky. And most people aren't really up for that.

[MaxWilson]

True. But im working harder to get lesser results than someone wth standard array or god stats.

Eh. Not much lesser results. If I've got:

Happy the Druid, Human Mobile Moon Druid S 5 D 8 (7) C 9 (8) I 8 W 10 C 7 AC 13 (Hide + Shield)
Level 4: Lucky,
Level 8: Sentinel
Level 12: Resilient (Con)
Favored tactics: skirmish tactics w/ Primal Savagery, or Produce Flame, or a crossbow. Later on Spike Growth, Bear form skirmish tactics, Spike Growth, Erupting Earth, Giant Constrictor Snake form at level 6, Conjure Animals, Polymorph (Giant Ape or T-Rex, still using skirmish tactics), elemental forms

nothing much changes from a tactical standpoint if I boost all of his stats to Captain America level. The biggest change is that he can use smarter and more sophisticated tactics without breaking my suspension of disbelief about what Happy would really do, but since the basic idea of "hit but don't get attacked, and change into tough animals if you need to tank" is pretty simple, I think even an Int 8 Happy could handle that pretty well. He won't be proactively seeking out elementals or demons to Planar Bind, and he will often just kill what's in front of him instead of looking for ways to leverage it (e.g. he probably won't try to Polymorph a Purple Worm into a rat that he can later toss over the wall of a hobgoblin fortification and release concentration to turn it back into a Purple Worm for killing hobgoblins). But he'll be effective and a valuable member of the team, and Captain America the Dex 18+ Sharpshooter or whatever will be glad (npi) to have Happy around. He won't be nigh-irrelevant in the way I think you were trying to say Happy is.

The biggest flaw with Happy as I've outlined above is that he dies more easily than a high-stats character would, especially with his AC 13. But either you're playing in a game where PC death isn't a thing, so that doesn't matter, or you're playing in a game where PC death is a thing, and you make a new character when Happy dies (and tell the sad story of how Happy died saving the sad puppy from the Purple Worm), and the game goes on.


Which is fine if that's what one wanted. But I feel mandatory rolling often forces one to heavily use system mastery and exploits to not be an utter embarrassment to the party if they get unlucky. And most people aren't really up for that.

There's nothing wrong with the PHB defaults in this case: roll if you want to, or use standard array/point buy if you don't want to. I can see why you'd dislike mandatory rolling. Rolling is definitely an acquired taste.

[Grimmnist]

The best way, in my opinion, to keep things interesting would be to take the 2 level warlock dip early so that at level 5 you are a 3rd level sorcerer and 2nd level warlock. This way, your highest spell casting level will always lag either the cleric or wizard by one level ... you will be casting 2nd level spells when they have access to third. I think this aspect will give both the cleric and wizard good opportunities to contribute their higher level spells in a significant way while you can provide direct damage and lower level spell support. The wizard will be able to drop a fireball or the cleric use spirit guardians for a couple of levels before you gain those abilities too.

Thanks for the suggestions. Yeah I was planning to take my 2 level lock-dip at levels 2 and 3, which would put me behind a spell level keeping the wizard and cleric relevant. In addition I went variant human for Warcaster, which is really good but not in an overly blatant way, this means I start with 18 cha, very good, but because of multiclassing I won't max that until level 6 or 7 just slightly above curve.

You also made a good point about not stepping on the cleric's toes with support role, I am primarily playing a ranged dps with a break in case of emergency buff/heal. The cleric is playing one of the melee domains so having off-heals/buffs should be fine in case they go down, plus knowing the player I don't think he'll complain about getting to use Guiding Bolt instead of Bless some fights.