Initial ability scores

[Trandir]

So by the book you are given 3 ways to determine your initial ability scores:
Point buy sistem
Strandard array
Rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest

So far I've seen point as the go to method since it's both balanced and customizable to whaterver character concept you might have.

Standard array is balanced but a bit less flexible compared to the point buy since you are forced to have 2 "high" stats and 1 dump stat.

Rolling is random, fun when done at session 0 with all the others and it isn't balanced. A player could end up with +18 total modifiers while another with 4 negative modifiers and they would have to keep those stats and a PC is obviously far more powerful/weak than the ohers.


I personally like to roll for stats but that's just me that likes this kind of gambles when playing.

So what do you prefer or as a DM what is your method to determine the initial stats during character creation?

Bonus: is you would like to see in the OP all the variants that have been and that might be posted in this thread fell free to let me know, if it has a positive reception I will do it immediately.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have a DM that do it like this:
Roll 23d6 the order is important.
You take 6 sets of 3, you can't cut a set in the middle.

If you rolled
2, 5, 6, 6, 1, 6, 4, 6

You can have 5 6 6 and 6 4 6 but not 6 6 6.

When I DM I prefer rolling as a group, everyone can use everyone else rolls.
If you want to be mad and someone got 4 times 16 you can also use it. If you want to be sad and someone rolled an 18 you can also use it.
Sometimes I use 3d6 for it and sometimes 4d6 drop low.


I know some tables that roll a d20 for every stat.


With all that half of my characters use point buy.

[Anymage]

People say they like rolling because it gives them variety in characters. But I've never actually seen anyone keep bad rolls, and very few rollers have kept stats in order. If you arrange to taste it's just a different version of a priority system where you hope to get lucky (and reroll if you don't), and standard array is a priority system already.

More importantly for me, D&D is a build based game. You already have the issue where a build that had to start from 1 will look different from one that starts at higher level. I want to minimize the amount that different paths towards the same outcome can have noticeably different results. Starting from very different initial conditions, like rolling stats does, flies directly in the face of that.

[Greywander]

3d6, in order. And you start at 0th level.

No but for real, one method I find kind of interesting is something called the "organic" method. Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, but your record them in order (i.e. the first roll is for STR, the second for DEX, etc.). Then, you can reroll one ability score of your choice, taking the better of the two rolls. Finally, you can switch any two ability scores.

The organic method, between the reroll and the switch, allows you to almost insure you get a good score in your primary ability score (e.g. on a wizard you can almost guaranty you have a good INT), but makes it much less likely you'll be perfectly optimized (your wizard might not have great DEX or CON). It also leads to some interesting variety (like high STR or CHA on your wizard).

If you really want to make it interesting, pick a race and class first, then roll ability scores. Otherwise you could just pick whatever is most optimized with your rolls (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you).

I'd say any random method, including the organic method, is better when you're not sure what type of character you want to play, or at least when you don't have a clear concept beyond a race and class. Roll the dice, see what you come up with, and then make up a character that fits those parameters. If you already have a specific build in mind, point buy is probably better.

[EggKookoo]

I let my players decide. They don't all have to use the same method.

Most prefer to roll 4d6 drop lowest, then arrange in any order. I let them reroll without limit but they have to reroll all 6 scores as a group. This doesn't result in endless rerolling -- they get a decent set pretty quickly and live with it. Racials and ASIs make stat generation less scary than it used to be in the dark ages.

[Yunru]

The players collectively roll a 8x8 grid of numbers in order.
They can pick any row or column of 6, in either order, to use.

[Aett_Thorn]

We did possibly my favorite way of rolling scores for our current group.

1) everyone rolls 4d6 drop lowest in stat order (str, dex, con, etc), and these stats are theirs for the moment. The DM rolls a set of bonus stats as well.

2) once everyone has rolled their stats, initiative is rolled (just a straight d20)

3) we now enter the white elephant gift exchange phase, where the top of the initiative can either keep their scores, or steal another player’s scores. Each set of stats can only be stolen twice.

4) whomever ends with the lowest overall set of stats gets to swap the order of two scores (so you could swap your Str and Cha score around)

Then the best part: if you traded scores with someone, your character has a pre-existing relationship with the other player’s character, which needs to be worked into the backstory.

This was both fun at the table, and allowed us to build our character backgrounds out a bit by having these relationships for our characters.

[False God]

I prefer my players to be a little tougher, so they can either:

4d6 reroll 1's, drop lowest, 7 times, drop lowest score, 3 times.

or take the array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.

I don't mind if it produces powerful characters, I tend to run deadly campaigns and I'd rather they have tough characters who can survive than to be rerolling weak ones.

[CNagy]

Standard array, occasionally point buy. It allows for quickly creating any kind of character, and (especially with the standard array, less so with point buy) sets a pretty stable power curve for the game. I associate dump stats with scores <6, so the 8 in the standard array never bothers me (your prof bonus at level 1 more than negates it.)

[Dork_Forge]

I allow players to choose between 4d6 drop lowest and point buy, not all players need to use the same method. If someone rolls particularly low I may allow them to use Point Buy instead and sometimes I'm inclined to allow a free feat at 1st (between half feat and the freedom it gives ASI I find this relevant to starting stats).

[Sigreid]

People say they like rolling because it gives them variety in characters. But I've never actually seen anyone keep bad rolls, and very few rollers have kept stats in order. If you arrange to taste it's just a different version of a priority system where you hope to get lucky (and reroll if you don't), and standard array is a priority system already.


I've played a lot of characters where their highest stat was 10 or less. It can be fun as you actually have to play better to keep them going.

[Lunali]

I either go with point buy or have everyone roll sets of 4d6 (unordered) and anyone can use any of the sets. The most important thing is to have balance between the PCs, if they end up too strong or weak collectively, that can be dealt with in encounter building.

[Grognerd]

I prefer the Point Buy method, since I like the hand of control in it without it being completely open to Min/Max abuse.

There are times when I'm looking for more powerful characters, such as "Legacy Characters" who are decendents of previous generations' heroes. For those characters, I still use Point Buy, but with 33 points. This allows for multiple high stats, but still keeps the PB cap of 15 (so up to 17 with racials). It makes for statistically better all around characters who can reach maximums with ASIs quicker, without just blowing the roof off of stats.

[Lupine]

I've played a lot of characters where their highest stat was 10 or less. It can be fun as you actually have to play better to keep them going.

That can be really fun, but you have to trust that your DM will make people reasonable. I’ve seen it happen where my character had overwhelming amounts of evidence to their point, but none of the townsfolk listened, simply because he failed a persuasion check. Mostly, characters like that rely on extensive amounts of preparation, which the DM has to facilitate.

I suppose that’s true of any character concept, but...

[Zevox]

I prefer point buy in general. The standard array is too set and boring, but I really dislike the randomness of rolling for stats. Takes too much control out of character creation, in my opinion.

That said, my most recent character has rolled stats, because my DM decided to allow us to roll for stats with the backup that if we didn't like what we rolled, we could drop it for point buy instead. And was particularly generous after my first batch of rolls turned up awful (something along the lines of 14, 11, 11, 10, 8, 6) and offered to let me roll again in the hopes of getting some result that could actually be worth considering using. Which lead to me getting a much stronger array (17, 16, 14, 14, 10, 10), which of course got used instead.

[JNAProductions]

I've recently been letting my players just pick stats. They can assign 3-18 to their stats, as they please.

[Tanarii]

Standard array. Dice rolling means I have to have people roll in front of me and I have to remember their original rolls if a I ever want to validate their character for some reason, and at an open table that just doesn't work. More's the pity, because that'd be my go-to otherwise. Point buy is a variant rule, and one I intentionally avoid as an alternative to official play. (It's a fine alternative rule if you like power gaming / optimizing.)

[Samayu]

Point buy. I like to fine-tune things.

4d6, discard lowest sounds like fun, except that they way my luck works, I'd have only one attribute with a positive modifier.

[firelistener]

Always point buy or standard array. I think rolling for stats is just way too random. If we were playing a single session one-shot that's pretty low-stakes, then I'd be fine with rolling, but any longer campaigns make it too difficult to deal with as fellow players and DM. Your options with rolling are:

Someone is lagging behind. They're a liability to the party, and the player is more likely to get frustrated that everything is more difficult for them than it should be. The DM will have to do extra work to rebalance encounters to make them easier, or just let this player's be less useful.
Someone is overpowered. The other players are more likely to feel overshadowed. The DM has to beef up encounters or rebalance them to target this player's character, running the risk even more of letting other players feel left out or that the game is outpacing their character with lower stats.
Their scores are normal. In which case, why not just use point buy or standard array?


I really don't see the point of it besides getting to roll a few more extra dice, which players do plenty of already in my opinion.

[Theodoxus]

I've recently been letting my players just pick stats. They can assign 3-18 to their stats, as they please.

I do this for my own characters, a lot. I just say I rolled them... I generally use a total in mind, most often 88 points (adding up all 6 scores as they are, not weighted, like PB).

For games I run, I tried letting players pick stats, but they just weren't into it...

Now, I use 4d6L1, in order, twice. If they can't make a character work with the rolls they got, they can use the standard array instead.

I'm also a big fan of everyone rolling, and then everyone picking the array they want to use from all the options.

[Greywander]

I think rolling for stats is just way too random. If we were playing a single session one-shot that's pretty low-stakes, then I'd be fine with rolling, but any longer campaigns make it too difficult to deal with as fellow players and DM.
[...]
I really don't see the point of it besides getting to roll a few more extra dice, which players do plenty of already in my opinion.
These are definitely valid concerns, and sometimes point buy or standard array are the better options to use (as I said in my post above, if you already have a specific build in mind, point buy is usually a better idea). But I think I can find a few ways to make rolling a bit more appealing to you, and maybe you'll warm up to it and use it a bit more.



Someone is lagging behind. They're a liability to the party, and the player is more likely to get frustrated that everything is more difficult for them than it should be. The DM will have to do extra work to rebalance encounters to make them easier, or just let this player's be less useful.
The simplest fix to this is to allow the player to reroll if they generate a bad array. For example, maybe they can reroll up to two times, but doing so means they have to discard their previously rolled array. The new array might be better, but it also might be worse, so if they get an array that is "good enough" they might want to stick with it instead of rerolling until they get an OP array.

Another way of dealing with this is allowing players to choose which array they use. There's a few variations of this. Each player might roll their own array, but can freely choose to use the array rolled by another player. There's also the method mentioned by Yunru (though their version is 8x8) where you roll 6 sets of arrays and arrange them into a 6x6 grid, letting players choose any row or column, forward or backward, or even diagonally.

Finally, you could also give them the option of just using the standard array instead of whatever they rolled. It's a bit boring, but you can at least be sure it's balanced.


Someone is overpowered. The other players are more likely to feel overshadowed. The DM has to beef up encounters or rebalance them to target this player's character, running the risk even more of letting other players feel left out or that the game is outpacing their character with lower stats.
I think the key here is to roll stats in order. Instead of being able to freely assign your rolls to whatever stat you want, you assign them in order as you roll them. This way, even if you get some really good rolls, they're unlikely to be in the stats you want. The possibility still exists of getting an overpowered build, but it's much less likely now.

If using the grid idea above, this means it matters whether you pick a row or column going forward or backward, up or down, since that dictates the "order" of the rolls and which stats they go to.

It also helps to realize that ability scores aren't the end all, be all of 5e. Good ability scores do make your character stronger, but there's not actually anything wrong with having a strong character. You could turn it into a narrative device; perhaps they're highly talented and therefore lazy and uninspired because they've never had to actually work to get what they want. Maybe they're desperately seeking a worthy challenge and just can't seem to find it. It can cause problems to have both strong and weak PCs in the same party, but it doesn't have to.


Their scores are normal. In which case, why not just use point buy or standard array?

As above, rolling stats in order will most likely do away with this. Even if you get a "normal" array, your good and bad stats still probably won't be the ones you wanted them to. For me, part of the problem with point buy is that it leads to cookie cutter characters, where you always take the same stats based on what's most optimized for your build. Rolling in order forces you to play something that's probably not quite optimized, and encourages you to try to find ways to make use of your accidentally good stats while also mitigating your unintentionally bad stats. What this means is that even a "normal" character becomes a bit more interesting, and not necessarily underpowered, just not fully optimized.

In conclusion, I hope this helps you see that there is more than one way to do randomly rolled stats, and that it is possible to do so in a way that addresses your concerns. You might still prefer to do point buy, and there's nothing wrong with that, but maybe you'd like to try something a bit different every now and then.

[Ignimortis]

For 5e, point-buy, buuuut you get 37 points and can buy 16 in a stat before racial bonuses.
Rough equivalents in other D&D versions too, like 30 PB in PF1e and 40 PB (not higher than 16 before racials) in 3.5.

[Mordaedil]

I've used the standard point buy in a previous campaign (that is currently on halt), but the current campaign had us roll 5d6 drop 2 lowest. I rolled a block and got really bad rolls, so I got to reroll and ended up with a block where my lowest stat was a 12, I also had a 16, a 15, and two 14's and a 17. All it really meant for me was that I could focus on getting the feats I wanted instead of increasing my scores.

[Asensur]

Point or standard.
Standard equipment.
Height and weight are free decision or rolling.

Lucky rolls are out of character creation in my campaigns.

[Glorthindel]

I always roll, and do strongly feel it is the correct way to go. But, recently, I have begun to suspect that i am wrong.

The thing is, rolling was always the way we did it, and up to recently, I have seen no reason to change, and the oldschool part of me wants to dismiss those who call for a change (to array or point-buy) as whiners who need to learn to deal with a bad roll.

But actually, the game has changed, and how stats are used is very different to how they used to, and the way we generate character stats should probably change with it.

The thing is, in AD&D, stats didn't matter. Not really. In AD&D you didn't gain any HP from Con until 15 (and didn't get a minus until 6). Strength didn't give you +1 to hit until 17 (and +1 to damage til 16). Dex didn't give you +1 AC til 15, and +1 Init (and +1 to hit with bows) til 16. But now every two points from 10 gives a modifier. The change is huge, but generally has gone largely unremarked.

Compare a character with 8's across the board and one with 16's across the board. In AD&D the difference meant +1 damage, +1 init, +2 AC, +1 to hit with missile weapons only, and +2 hp per level. But now? That difference would be a difference of +4 to hit, damage, AC, and hp per level. Then when you consider the different ways the rules have changed (Fighters used to get +1 to hit every level, while now they get the much smaller proficiency bonus as everyone else), a lot more emphasis is placed on those stat bonuses than in previous editions. In AD&D a Fighter would be perfectly fine with a Strength of 9 (in fact, I once played one with that score), while now it would be completely unfeasible. Stats just do so much more now.

When you consider it like that, rolling stats is really a hold-over from a ruleset that it no longer applies to.

[Crucius]

I use Point Buy +

33 points up to 17 before racial bonusses, 16 and 17 cost 3 points. You can also buy 1 feat for 6 points, no variant human.

This way I hope to stimulate creative race/class combinations without compromising in power and enable interesting builds a bit earlier on by allowing them to buy a feat.

So far it has worked wonders! Everyone has an interesting multiclass, there are some crazy creative builds that utilize 2 feats that can work at level 5, and no one has a 20 in a stat yet even though that is entirely possible.

So for me it has been a huge success!

[Dork_Forge]

I use Point Buy +

33 points up to 17 before racial bonusses, 16 and 17 cost 3 points. You can also buy 1 feat for 6 points, no variant human.

This way I hope to stimulate creative race/class combinations without compromising in power and enable interesting builds a bit earlier on by allowing them to buy a feat.

So far it has worked wonders! Everyone has an interesting multiclass, there are some crazy creative builds that utilize 2 feats that can work at level 5, and no one has a 20 in a stat yet even though that is entirely possible.

So for me it has been a huge success!

I'm totally stealing this PB variant, that looks fun as hell to build with!

[EggKookoo]

When you consider it like that, rolling stats is really a hold-over from a ruleset that it no longer applies to.

On the flip side, your ability scores in OD&D were carved in stone. If you had a 13 Strength, you had a 13 Strength until the heat death of the universe.

In modern editions with all-plus racials and ASIs, low initial scores aren't so bad. I'm surprised 5e still defaults to 4d6-drop-lowest instead of a straight 3d6.

[CheddarChampion]

What does the playground think of this method?

If your first level is in a class with two stat requirements for multiclassing, assign a 16 to one and a 15 to the other. You have 14 points to spend on the other stats.
If your first level is in a class with one stat requirement for multiclassing, assign a 16 to that stat. You have 20 points to spend on the other stats.
The cap for buying stats through point buy is 14 (prior to racial stat boosts).
If your racial stat bonuses would boost a stat to 18, reduce that stat to 17 and get 2 more points to use for point buy (to use in another stat).

Edit: this is supposed to reduce dependency on pairing classes with races that boost the primary stats.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

What does the playground think of this method?

If your first level is in a class with two stat requirements for multiclassing, assign a 16 to one and a 15 to the other. You have 14 points to spend on the other stats.
If your first level is in a class with one stat requirement for multiclassing, assign a 16 to that stat. You have 20 points to spend on the other stats.
The cap for buying stats through point buy is 14 (prior to racial stat boosts).
If your racial stat bonuses would boost a stat to 18, reduce that stat to 17 and get 2 more points to use for point buy (to use in another stat).

I think it limit the options the players have, I personally want my players to have options where ASI at level up isn't the best choice.

If they need two ASIs to get to 20(in case there is no half feat they want) then they are less likely to take feats instead.

If my players don't need to care about ASIs they can get fun tools from feats and do stuff that I see as fun without looking back at their choices.

[Willie the Duck]

My main group has always done rolling for stats and never had a problem (honestly, the variability you can expect from it in most cases will be smaller than the overall balance variance in other reasonable build differences). We are, however, probably going to try point buy for the next campaign.


When you consider it like that, rolling stats is really a hold-over from a ruleset that it no longer applies to.

I agree that the ruleset where the roll-stat model was introduced* was wildly different. However, the concept behind rolling stats applies to both systems -- there are just more consequences most of the time in the modern system (which might change whether you want to use it). The basic premise of 'this time you rolled poorly, but next time you might roll really well' still functions (as intended) in both systems.
*oD&D, where it started, was even more wildly different and gave fewer benefits/penalties for high/low stats than B/X or AD&D.

I think the argument against rolled stats that works for me is that characters take longer to make, survive longer (if played reasonably), and have more reasons to get attached to specific ones. For those reasons, it's a lot less enjoyable to sit through 'playing out the low-stat character, possibly waiting for them to die.'


On the flip side, your ability scores in OD&D were carved in stone. If you had a 13 Strength, you had a 13 Strength until the heat death of the universe.

Excepting that gauntlets of ogre power or the like were a lot more common (and had nothing similar to attunement slots to make them a opportunity cost), and published modules set the stage for dungeons having random pools that granted an attribute boost to anyone who drank, or the like. So it was a bit more varied than the base presentation might indicate. As always, stuff from bitd had high heterogeneity based on group playstyle.


In modern editions with all-plus racials and ASIs, low initial scores aren't so bad. I'm surprised 5e still defaults to 4d6-drop-lowest instead of a straight 3d6.

I think simple expectation from decades of it being standard to semi-standard (true, oD&D through BECMI/RC all used 3d6 the whole time, and neither 1e nor 2e specifically called for 4d6b3 as the one universal method, but there's 42 years of published material implying that straight 3d6 is sub-par). Even though, yes, you can just re-adjust the math to get the same results (and then get 10-11 back to actually meaning average). 3d6 instead of 4d6b3 but then giving a universal +1 to what they mean (so score of 3 is -3, 10 is +1, 18 is +5, etc.) would net you roughly the same outcome.

[Belthien]

I'm a fan of the M&M technique.

1. Each player buys a large/sharing bag of M&Ms (peanut or normal, players choice).
2. The players blind-draw out 72 M&Ms from their bag. The number of Red=Strength score, Yellow=Dex, Brown=Con, Blue=Int, Green=Wis, Orange=Cha. Round any stats down to 20 if needed.
3. The player then eats their 72 M&Ms (in any order)

[Petrocorus]

Point Buy only.

I properly hate random generation for RPG.

Not only it create unfairness and potentially imbalance on the table, with one or several PC being clearly more powerful than the others, and one being clearly lacking.
This obviously unpleasant for the one on the receiving end of this "injustice", but it's not really pleasant for the one with perfect stats either. I've been on both end of this bargain and i've always dislike it.

But it may also can lead to a player having to play a PC he doesn't like. Or that is not even the type of character he want to play.

I started RPG with ADD1, Warhammer 1 and Hawkmoon 1, where almost everything was randomly generated (3d6 in order for ADD, for instance). And with old-school DM who were sometimes abiding blindly to the rules. And not only this resulted with huge power gaps between PC (notably in WH) but also the odious result of the player who want to play a certain character and ends up playing something completely different because he has to abide to rolls. Like a rogue or a wizard instead of a fighter.
This has definitely and completely convinced me to banish all randomness from character generation in all my games.

And nowadays? Well, frankly, with all due respect, every single times there is a talk about this, all the methods of random generation i've seen proposed here and there seems to be tailored to ensure better stats than point buy, or with several "safeties" in place.



I think the key here is to roll stats in order. Instead of being able to freely assign your rolls to whatever stat you want, you assign them in order as you roll them. This way, even if you get some really good rolls, they're unlikely to be in the stats you want.

Which is the very worst scenario possible.
What if you roll 5 super-stats and one very poor one? And what if this one is the one ability you need for the class you chose?
You wanted to play a dwarven wizard, you had your concept, even worked the background and you roll a 9 in Int? And the DM refuse to let you reroll because of tradition, or because you got 18, 18, 17, 16 and 15 in other stats, or because that would create an exception?
You are to play a wizard that's bad at wizarding or not to play a wizard.
Well done!

[Sigreid]

So I will say at my table, where we rotate DMs you can use any of the three methods, point buy, standard array or rolling. So far everyone rolls.

[Yunru]

Which is the very worst scenario possible.
What if you roll 5 super-stats and one very poor one? And what if this one is the one ability you need for the class you chose?
You wanted to play a dwarven wizard, you had your concept, even worked the background and you roll a 9 in Int? And the DM refuse to let you reroll because of tradition, or because you got 18, 18, 17, 16 and 15 in other stats, or because that would create an exception?
You are to play a wizard that bad at wizarding or not to play a wizard.
Well done!

Which is why the first thing to character creation is always determine your stats, what the books say be damned.

[Tanarii]

Which is the very worst scenario possible.
What if you roll 5 super-stats and one very poor one? And what if this one is the one ability you need for the class you chose?
You wanted to play a dwarven wizard, you had your concept, even worked the background and you roll a 9 in Int? And the DM refuse to let you reroll because of tradition, or because you got 18, 18, 17, 16 and 15 in other stats, or because that would create an exception?
You are to play a wizard that bad at wizarding or not to play a wizard.
Well done!
For 5e, in which the PHB walks players through the process in the order 'choose class, then roll', you're absolute right.

But I'm pretty sure the idea is to do it the other way around whenever someone suggests 'roll in order'. Which works just fine. Maybe not for you personally, but there isnt anything generally wrong with it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

For most of my games, I offer a choice of point buy or rolling (4d6-1). I offer standard array for anyone who rolls and dislikes their result.

If you pick anything other than variant human or half-elf and roll, two of your stats are 5d6-2. If you're half-elf, one stat is 5d6-2. Variant human gets no special consideration.

I tend to offer a free 1st level feat as well. One of my players and sometimes DM likes to offer a free 1st level feat only if you roll.

In a game two years ago, I added a simple wrinkle- you could trade a maximum of two of your rolled stats with any other players. It let the supremely lucky choose to aid the supremely unlucky.

In a game I started earlier this year I had players determine stats for three characters each in a hyper lethal campaign using the following method-

1.) Starting with the first character, decide if you want better chances at stats or a free 1st level feat (variant humans were banned this time, but standard humans got an extra skill, tool, and language).
2.) If you chose better stats, roll 4d6-1 four times. If you chose the feat, roll 3d6 four times.
3.) Make your decision on better stats or a feat separately for each of your three characters. You can see that being chancy with the 3d6 ruined the last character and decide to do 4d6 for the next.
4.) Now, roll 4d6-1 six times. These are floating stats. You apply two from this pool to each of your three characters, regardless of their stats generation method.

For a game I'm about to play, I invented a simplified variant on the grid system. An upcoming DM liked it enough that I became the first guinea pig in exchange for a free 1st level feat (there's a pattern here)-

1.) Draw a 3x3 grid. In the columns, label them Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. In the rows, label them Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. You may swap Strength and Intelligence if desired, but nothing else.
2.) Roll 9d6.
3.) Pick up any dice you want to reroll, and then reroll all of them together. You only get to do this once.
4.) Place the resultant dice on the 3x3 grid. A stat is equal to the three dice in it's line.

[Expected]

Point-buy, without a doubt. There's no variability in builds and you can plan out everything in advance. It also keeps the power of each character in check and allows for more balanced encounters. The first time I played, we rolled for scores and I rolled poorly--never again.

[Willie the Duck]

One method we have used with still utilizes a level of randomness/'can't always get what you want', but still inter-player fairness is thus:
The GM rolls 4d6b3 a certain number of times (50, 100, 1000, whatever) and lists them out in order on a numbered list. Players may choose any line on the list to start, and their stats are filled in in-order (so if you start at line #1, then line #1 becomes your PC's Strength, line #2 their Dexterity, etc.). The list wraps, so if you choose a number 3 lines from the end, those 3 lines become your Str, Dex, and Con, and then lines #1-3 become Int through Cha. This means everyone still gets to choose what to be, can optimize around decisions, and everyone gets to choose from the same list (so there's a level of fairness), but you don't get exactly what you want and have to build around certain option set available.

[Zevox]

Which is why the first thing to character creation is always determine your stats, what the books say be damned.
I would never play like that, as a player or DM. The player deciding what they want to play comes first and takes priority over all else, aside from reasonable objections the DM may have. Stats are subservient to that.

[Trandir]

Anyone would like if I put in the OP all the "variants" listed so far and those that will come up in the future?

[Yunru]

I would never play like that, as a player or DM. The player deciding what they want to play comes first and takes priority over all else, aside from reasonable objections the DM may have. Stats are subservient to that.

Except they're not. It doesn't matter what your concept is, if the stats don't allow it, the stats don't allow it.
Hell, that's the entire point of stats, they define your character. You can't be a strong character if you don't have high strength, for example.

You might not like it, but you're completely wrong to say you don't play like that, you just don't notice it because it's subconscious.
Well, unless you let (and are allowed as a player) to set your stats to whatever you want, without restriction.

[Tanarii]

I would never play like that, as a player or DM. The player deciding what they want to play comes first and takes priority over all else, aside from reasonable objections the DM may have. Stats are subservient to that.
You're hurting my grognard soul.

If "4d6d1, arrange in any order" hadn't been the standard since AD&D 1e (per DMG , I'd probably be griping that 5e hadn't gone with 3d6 down the line, so all you Jennie-come-latelys could power it up to 4d6d1 arrange. :smallamused:

[CheddarChampion]

Anyone would like if I put in the OP all the "variants" listed so far and those that will come up in the future?

I vote Yes.

[Wildarm]

In a game two years ago, I added a simple wrinkle- you could trade a maximum of two of your rolled stats with any other players. It let the supremely lucky choose to aid the supremely unlucky.


That's a neat idea. Players must tie in the characters backgrounds as well. Owing a great debt, being a mentor, or a family member seems like a good hook for it.


I'm a fan of the M&M technique.

1. Each player buys a large/sharing bag of M&Ms (peanut or normal, players choice).
2. The players blind-draw out 72 M&Ms from their bag. The number of Red=Strength score, Yellow=Dex, Brown=Con, Blue=Int, Green=Wis, Orange=Cha. Round any stats down to 20 if needed.
3. The player then eats their 72 M&Ms (in any order)

Was curious on what sort of variance you could expect from this. Assuming a random M&M distribution and my math being correct, here's the chances that you'll have at least one stats be:

14+: 88%
15+: 75%
16+: 56%
17+: 39%
18+: 21%

That's better chances than 4d6 drop 1.

[Petrocorus]

Which is why the first thing to character creation is always determine your stats, what the books say be damned.



But I'm pretty sure the idea is to do it the other way around whenever someone suggests 'roll in order'. Which works just fine. Maybe not for you personally, but there isnt anything generally wrong with it.

Indeed, this is true.
And confirm my point.
This lead to the really very unpleasant situation of a player who cannot play the kind of character he wants or is force to play a character he doesn't want.


Except they're not. It doesn't matter what your concept is, if the stats don't allow it, the stats don't allow it.
Hell, that's the entire point of stats, they define your character. You can't be a strong character if you don't have high strength, for example.

And you confirm again.

You do know one point of RPG is not to be like Real Life.
And another point is that we're not in 1974 any more.

Your concept is what matter. You choose what you want to play, and then define the stats. Because the Player Character is a character, not a real person.
And yes, obviously, in the background of your character, he has been driven to become what he was talented for. If he's a GWM Fighter, that means he was a naturally strong guy, and trained to become stronger and then specialised in big weapons. But if it's in the past and defining history of the character, that doesn't mean it should be defined before defining what you want to play.




You might not like it, but you're completely wrong to say you don't play like that, you just don't notice it because it's subconscious.
Well, unless you let (and are allowed as a player) to set your stats to whatever you want, without restriction.
Or simply use point-buy. Or any other non-random character generation system.
You decide you want to play a strong character, and then you put the generation points in Strength. And then write a background explaining why he's so strong.
Because the character is not a real person who need to become strong and fit before being an elite fighter.
And the player is here to play and have fun, not to only do what the rolls tell him.

And, BTW, i'm a grognard too. I started in the late 80s with ADD1, WH, SW D6, CoC 4, Hawkmoon. I had my share of randomly generated characters, and nowadays i can't see a single convincing arguments for random generation.

[Willie the Duck]

We're kinda going around in circles in that everyone is saying roughly the same thing, just with different opinions on what things are features and what are bugs.

Rolled stats (particularly without rearranging to taste) provides a play experience where you have to/get to/are given the challenge of having to figure out what to do with a situation you are presented with, while point buy/array provides a play experience where you get to/have to/are given the task of figuring out what situation you are going to present yourself with (and then excel within that framework).

Both are reasonable things to expect for different playstyles and people can want one or the other. I'm always genuinely befuddled why this particular playstyle decision causes so much division. Specifically because:
Regardless of how one comes down on the matter with respect specifically to attributes, the game will always be a mix of the two systems -- Although stats can be random-lots or choose-from-set-total, the game will nonetheless have random lot effects. You will be rolling dice throughout the game either way, be it to-hits and saves and skill checks, or Hit Dice rolls as you level up, or heck running into randomly distributed challenges with randomly distributed treasure. Likewise, you almost always will also get to make choose-from-option decisions, be they class, race, skills, etc., or more transitory things like party order.
All sorts of other popular games have the option between these two options, and people don't make a big deal out of it -- I will use an example. The one computer game I tend to play is whatever the current iteration of Civilization is. That game too, has the option of choosing how much of the game setup is set to random (you could get lucky, you could end up shafted) or pre-selected. You can pick a random geography and start location, or set it up that your civilization will show up on a real map of planet Earth right where the civilization you chose existed in reality. Likewise, you can choose which civilization you will play, or let the computer determine it randomly. The specifics don't matter much, but the point is there are lots of sliders on how much choice vs. random allotment you get, any given playstyle is just fine (so long as it is the one you want), and the community of that game don't act like having different preferences on the matter are a big deal.

[Yunru]

Apologies, I feel the scope of my statement was unclear:
Regardless of how you determine stats (provided it has limits), your character concept is going to be restricted based on those options.

[prabe]

I've seen too much variation in initial starting competency to be entirely happy with any random method, but the point buy system in the PHB is ... boring. So, I worked out a different method for the campaigns I run: Pick your ability scores, any number 3-18; half of them must be odd, the other half must be even; you may not pick any number more than twice. Now, apply racial bonuses; you may not adjust an ability past 18 at level 1.

Yes, this lets people build competent characters, but I push them pretty hard, at least in the early levels, and I don't want to kill them by accident. (If they do something stupid, that's a different thing.)

EDIT: The total modifiers cannot be greater than +9. The bonus could be anything; I picked +9 because I explicitly wanted competent starting characters.

[Sigreid]

I've seen too much variation in initial starting competency to be entirely happy with any random method, but the point buy system in the PHB is ... boring. So, I worked out a different method for the campaigns I run: Pick your ability scores, any number 3-18; half of them must be odd, the other half must be even; you may not pick any number more than twice. Now, apply racial bonuses; you may not adjust an ability past 18 at level 1.

Yes, this lets people build competent characters, but I push them pretty hard, at least in the early levels, and I don't want to kill them by accident. (If they do something stupid, that's a different thing.)

So, a player who wants to can have 4 18s, a 17 and a 16 pretty easily?

[KorvinStarmast]

And, BTW, i'm a grognard too. I started in the late 80s with ADD1, WH, SW D6, CoC, Hawkmoon. I had my share of randomly generated characters, and nowadays i can't see a single convincing arguments for random generation. I started in 1975, three brown books, and I like rolling dice. Having the chance to arrange them and 4d6d1 is just a bonus.

5e
Our first four campaigns were: roll.
I have played two campaigns with point buy.
I am DMing two games with roll.
I have DM'd a couple of short campaigns with point buy.
I detest the standard array.

I have played a lot of one shots with point buy, and a few play tests.

All of them are fun.

A suggestion that I have not seen mentioned yet, but that I have seen suggested on the Playground a number of times.


All players roll six times 4d6 drop lowest.
Each person examines the arrays.

All players can play with the same array as any other player or their own roll up.

That way, one of the players can have rolled up the "best" combo for the whole team.

Team Building! Step 0.

[prabe]

So, a player who wants to can have 4 18s, a 17 and a 16 pretty easily?

I'm sorry. There was something I neglected to mention. There's a cap on total stat modifiers. So, probably not.

[Wildarm]

I'm sorry. There was something I neglected to mention. There's a cap on total stat modifiers. So, probably not.

I assume the +9 is the total positive modifiers? You could still get +4, +3, +2 with 18,17,15,11,10,10. That's a very strong V-Human stat spread with 18/18/16/11/10/10 and a Bonus Feat at level 1. Or did you mean the +9 was after racials. That would make it a bit more balanced though SAD classes would still be pretty strong.

[HappyDaze]

I only allow the standard array in my games. It keeps everyone on the same level (unlike random outcomes) and cuts down on min-maxing (compared to point buy).

[Sigreid]

I have also done things like roll 4d6 dont drop any if I wanted the party to be literal demigods or something.

[Petrocorus]

I've seen ..... that's a different thing.)

EDIT: The total modifiers cannot be greater than +9. The bonus could be anything; I picked +9 because I explicitly wanted competent starting characters.

I find this very interesting.
It is better for MAD characters, while not creating overpowered characters.
I don't think it produce more powered PC than point-buy system with optimization.

[Anymage]

I'm a little curious why people give out high stats instead of high levels when they want high powered campaigns. The stats are nice, especially in 5e where every stat is a save now. It's just that class features are even nicer.

[Zevox]

Apologies, I feel the scope of my statement was unclear:
Regardless of how you determine stats (provided it has limits), your character concept is going to be restricted based on those options.
If your only real objection to what I said is that any method of determining stats means that you likely won't be able to do a character concept that required all of your stats maxed out or the like, it's covered under what I said about reasonable DM objections - in this case most DMs would likely object to such things on balance grounds.

Beyond that, Petrocorus' responses to you capture my feelings fairly well. Character creation should allow the player to start with a concept and turn that into something they can play within the game, within the balance and flavor bounds set by the DM. Players should never be forced to play something they don't want to just because the dice didn't give them a good score in a stat that's essential for what they wanted to play, and I would never want to play a game where that was a possibility, nor inflict such a thing on my players. (Barring an explicit request to do so by an individual player that likes the idea, anyway, and then I'd never make anyone else do the same who didn't want to.) Rolling for stats I can take within reason, even though I very much think point buy is the preferable method; but rolling for stats in that manner, where you're expected to get the stats first and build the character around them rather than assign the stats to fit the character, never.

[ChiefBigFeather]

The problem I see with rolling is that rolling is almost always mechanically stronger then point buy. If I roll really well, I take a class that can really benefit (e.g. Paladins like really high stats), if I roll poorly, I just play a moon druid. The average stats of rolled stats are higher then point buy too. Lastly, I really dislike leaving character strength and concept viability to random chance. Rolling is something that worked really well in AD&D, a system where character death was frequent and expected and way more severe random things where part of the game and most stories. That edition just worked that way. 5e is very different in that regard, so I definitely prefer point buy here.

[Anymage]

Character creation should allow the player to start with a concept and turn that into something they can play within the game, within the balance and flavor bounds set by the DM. Players should never be forced to play something they don't want to just because the dice didn't give them a good score in a stat that's essential for what they wanted to play

If someone comes in with a concept, fully agreed. I have a minor quibble in that nobody should come in with a character sight unseen - you really want a session zero to minimize the chance of things like multiple characters playing the same basic archetype or players coming in with characters who buck main campaign themes - but once the basics are hammered out the finer details should be under the player's control.

Sometimes, though, players don't know what they want to play. And some players actively want to challenge themselves by taking a random assortment of things and trying to make a good story out of the pieces. It isn't my cup of tea, but at least the "surprise me" types make sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem I see with rolling is that rolling is almost always mechanically stronger then point buy. That's not a problem. The players are more important than the game. (That's a PoV that I have always found to work: the players are more important than the game. I realize that there are other points of view).

[Zevox]

If someone comes in with a concept, fully agreed. I have a minor quibble in that nobody should come in with a character sight unseen - you really want a session zero to minimize the chance of things like multiple characters playing the same basic archetype or players coming in with characters who buck main campaign themes - but once the basics are hammered out the finer details should be under the player's control.

Sometimes, though, players don't know what they want to play. And some players actively want to challenge themselves by taking a random assortment of things and trying to make a good story out of the pieces. It isn't my cup of tea, but at least the "surprise me" types make sense.
Oh sure, you always work with the DM when making a character, and coordinate with the other players about party makeup if there's any concerns about that. I suppose I just kind of take that as a given.

And yeah, as I mentioned in my last post I could see allowing a player who specifically wanted to make their character that way to do so. It's the notion of that being some standard way that a character should be made that I find very problematic.

[Sigreid]

The problem I see with rolling is that rolling is almost always mechanically stronger then point buy. If I roll really well, I take a class that can really benefit (e.g. Paladins like really high stats), if I roll poorly, I just play a moon druid. The average stats of rolled stats are higher then point buy too. Lastly, I really dislike leaving character strength and concept viability to random chance. Rolling is something that worked really well in AD&D, a system where character death was frequent and expected and way more severe random things where part of the game and most stories. That edition just worked that way. 5e is very different in that regard, so I definitely prefer point buy here.

My experience is that rolling most often generates stats pretty close to a standard array. Sometimes you get significantly better or worse, but on average it seems about the same.

[Nagog]

I've always done 5d6, drop the lowest, and you get 1 reroll if the total is less than 10. While this can produce some powerful stats and some broken characters, most characters don't have higher than a +3 in any stat to start out. Those who are lucky are lucky, those who are not, are not. I prefer this method as both DM and player. As a DM, I enjoy seeing my players experiment and put a lot of thought into their characters, and a big part of that is feats. As a Player, I enjoy the same.

Then again, I'm very much a story based DM, and hand pick players who are the same. For DMs and Players who play the game for the combat and mechanics alone, this method allows some characters to outshine others in a way that can ruin the fun for those less fortunate in their stat rolls.

[prabe]

I assume the +9 is the total positive modifiers? You could still get +4, +3, +2 with 18,17,15,11,10,10. That's a very strong V-Human stat spread with 18/18/16/11/10/10 and a Bonus Feat at level 1. Or did you mean the +9 was after racials. That would make it a bit more balanced though SAD classes would still be pretty strong.

Looks as though the conversation moved on while I was out, but the total to modifiers is before racial modifiers; there are enough differences in the modifiers that I wouldn't want to apply the cap *after* racial modifiers. There are some efficiencies to find and exploit, but that's ... something I'm willing to live with. As people suggest things that skew the game past what I'm comfortable with, the system evolves. My own personal preference is for more well-rounded characters; I'd rather have a slightly bonus in four stats than max out two (or even three).

[Anymage]

Oh sure, you always work with the DM when making a character, and coordinate with the other players about party makeup if there's any concerns about that. I suppose I just kind of take that as a given.

My bigger worry would be two players doing something like want to bring the same sorcadin build, and step on each others toes. That can happen when the DM just says to bring whatever you want.

Still, there's a reason I called this a minor quibble. I'm pretty sure we agree on the main details, I just think it's important to highlight how much things should be talked out before people start filling out character sheets.


That's not a problem. The players are more important than the game. (That's a PoV that I have always found to work: the players are more important than the game. I realize that there are other points of view).

Those are nice sounding but empty words. Making sure that the players all enjoy themselves does require effort from both the table and the devs, otherwise there's a strong risk of someone stepping on someone else's toes. And without Shadowrun-esque hard niche protection where other characters have heavy penalties or are outright barred from trying to access someone else's shtick, encouraging players to have built in weak points helps encourage players to pass around the spotlight to play up everyone's individual strengths.

[Tanarii]

Mechanically stronger doesn't always mean no weak point. But in the case of rolling, I've seen it come close. Arrays like 17/16/15/14/14/12. I made that one up just now but its representative. Conversely, and again made up but representative, I've seen things like 13/12/11/9/9/6. Playable but a big challenge. And that's with fairly limited use of rolling, i.e. i only use it in one shots (which to me means a handful of sessions).

I don't think they could in fairness to D&D have gotten rid of dice rolling as one of the two main options. And given they wanted to make the game with a built in 'Basic' rule set, it's hardly surprising the other default was standard array. With Point Buy variant being for more experienced tables / official play.

I mean, I totally understand the relative importance of ability scores in the post-3e D&D world, and yet I still wax nostalgic about rolling and playing something determined randomly by your rolls. But the reality is being down 2 pts below average on your 2 to 3 highest scores is a big deal. And some combinations are not anything someone would normally do. For example bery high Str but very low Con is likely to end up with someone rolling up a soon to be dead Fighter. :smallamused:

Edit: Out of curiosity, I rolled up a 6 person party using 4d6d1. It was wildly variable. Pretty sure the second would be fairly unhappy if it were an extended campaign.

14 12 11 10 10 10
13 10 9 8 8 7
16 14 13 13 12 10
14 14 12 11 9 5
18 17 12 9 8 6
15 13 10 9 9 6

[bid]

Always point buy.

If I want randomness: roll a few d6, every 1 is +1 Str, ..., every 6 is +1 Cha.
So {6, 3, 5} is +1 Cha, +1 Con, +1 Wis.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm a little curious why people give out high stats instead of high levels when they want high powered campaigns. The stats are nice, especially in 5e where every stat is a save now. It's just that class features are even nicer.

Probably simply a cultural norm. XP is the reward for gaming well, and thus levels are the rewards you earn (and, for the most part, you want to experience the earning of).


My experience is that rolling most often generates stats pretty close to a standard array. Sometimes you get significantly better or worse, but on average it seems about the same.

Statistically (and pre-racial adjustment), 4d6b3 averages to just about 12.25, while point buy is between 11.5 (straight 8s and 15s) and 12.5 (12s and 13s). I think the point, though, was that rolling can be gamed, in that if you roll low you just choose classes where it matters less). Mind you, that's part of the point of rolling -- make do with what you get and figure out how to make it work. That's the point and the challenge is part of the fun (for those who like it; and for those who do not find such things fun, it's really hard to make a case for why you'd want to do it).

[Sigreid]

I'm a little curious why people give out high stats instead of high levels when they want high powered campaigns. The stats are nice, especially in 5e where every stat is a save now. It's just that class features are even nicer.

Speaking for myself, if I want to do a high power campaign I still want to do the developing heroes thing, just starting with better raw material. Similar to how the ancient myths of heroes I'm most familiar with start with a young and inexperienced person who is better raw material than their friends.

[KorvinStarmast]

Those are nice sounding but empty words. Nope. It's the voice of experience talking.

[ChildofLuthic]

I've seen too much variation in initial starting competency to be entirely happy with any random method, but the point buy system in the PHB is ... boring. So, I worked out a different method for the campaigns I run: Pick your ability scores, any number 3-18; half of them must be odd, the other half must be even; you may not pick any number more than twice. Now, apply racial bonuses; you may not adjust an ability past 18 at level 1.

EDIT: The total modifiers cannot be greater than +9. The bonus could be anything; I picked +9 because I explicitly wanted competent starting characters.

So for say a pally half orc you could do 16+2, 10, 17+1, 5, 11, 18? That lets you have a +4 in 3 stats AND not hurt your important saves too much.

For a SAD caster it's even easier, especially if you pick a class that gets a + to either your casting stat, DEX or CON. IE a Bugbear Wizard. 3+2, 17+1, 18, 18, 11, 11. 3 18s, and you only have to dump strength, which you won't need anyway.

Of course, this only happens if you have obnoxious minmaxy players.

[Jophiel]

I prefer point buy (or array if you're lazy) for balanced characters. Almost everyone who rolls dice seems to add in extra rules to avoid consequences (pick a set from a neighbor, drop lowest, reroll 1's, etc) that leads to stat inflation.

[Pex]

I've been converted to preferring Point Buy over rolling. I've come to realized my taste now is wanting the guaranteed good enough array to make my character function well. I don't hate dice rolling, but when I felt disappointed the DM said that's what we're using I knew my conversion was complete.

However, preferring Point Buy does not mean I like how 5E does it. It's a matter of personal taste. I only use it because it's what's available. Absolute forbiddance of an 18 at 1st level combined with every ability score is a save and must choose between ASI or a feat, I find it quite suffocating. Point Buy systems I like are Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2, and 3E if at least 28 pts. Ironically I also like 4E's implementation of it despite not liking the game. It synergizes well with 4E's paradigm of everyone being Dual-Ability Score dependent.

[strake]

I've played multiple campaigns where players were given 3 options for stats.
1) point buy (build precisely what you want)
2) 4d6 drop 1 6 times, arrange however you like (have some randomness, but probably play the class you were leaning towards)
3) 5d6 drop 2 in order, no changes (have solid stats, but who knows where the good scores will end up)

What I found interesting is that every single one of those campaigns had at least 1 player pick each option. The 5d6 resulted in some memorable characters - the monk with an 18 int, the sorc with 14,15,16 on the physical stats, and a 6 wis. But there were always people who didn't want to roll, or wanted the flexibility of picking their stats, and they never seemed to mind that the 5d6 people all ended up with slightly better scores overall, because they had to make do with what they got.

[prabe]

So for say a pally half orc you could do 16+2, 10, 17+1, 5, 11, 18? That lets you have a +4 in 3 stats AND not hurt your important saves too much.

For a SAD caster it's even easier, especially if you pick a class that gets a + to either your casting stat, DEX or CON. IE a Bugbear Wizard. 3+2, 17+1, 18, 18, 11, 11. 3 18s, and you only have to dump strength, which you won't need anyway.

Of course, this only happens if you have obnoxious minmaxy players.

That would fit the rules. Of course, there are ways to punish people for tanking a stat that badly, and I'm willing to do so. Since the handout I give the players says the purpose is to allow flexibility, not to encourage relentless optimization, I wouldn't feel bad about dropping INT saves on that paladin and/or putting him in a position where there was thinking involved; nor would I feel bad about dropping STR saves on that wizard and/or putting him in a position where he had to use his physical might to solve a problem. I *might* be kind and ask the player to come up with something mroe well-rounded, especially if everyone else at the table did.

So far, there hasn't been much pushing of things. I've adjusted things because of players, but I haven't yet had anyone try to optimize the fun out of it, yet.

[Theodoxus]

I like that 3x3 grid, but running a number of iterations, I think either 1d6+1 for each spot, but no rerolls, or 1d8 and no rerolls brings the totals closer to normal, since each roll is being used for two different stats, a 1 or 2 is particularly harsh.

One other way of generating stats I haven't seen mentioned, is 1d8+7. It keeps characters in the 8-15 range of PB, but allows for a bit more randomness / dice rolling that people seem to like.

One option I'd suggest using is comparing the roll totals to a PB spread, and if lower, adjust each stat, in order, by 1 point until you reach 27 points. It's very easy to do with a PB calculator, and keeps unlucky folks from being vastly underpowered. Of course, even if you managed to roll 6 8's and got all 15s, you're not exactly superman/hercules... though if you don't go standard human, I'd look at you funny :smallwink:

[opaopajr]

:smalltongue: I like random point buy, for those "balanced tables" and my relentless ennui. :smallbiggrin:

Get 27 pts, roll 1d8 -1 as you go down the Ability stats, spending points as determined by the Ability increase of the roll. Be sure to spend all 27 pts.

i.e. Roll 1d8-1 for STR, get an 8-1=7. Your STR stat will be 8 plus this 7, starting at 15. You spend 9 pts to get STR 15.

i.e.2. Roll 1d8-1 for STR DEX CON, get a 1-1=0 three times in a row. STR DEX CON will all start at 8s. Since you must spend all your points the rest of INT WIS CHA will all start at 15s.

Quick and easy random point buy. :smallcool:

[Trandir]

Well no one wants to see all the different variants used in the tables apparently. Oh well less wprk for me


:smalltongue: I like random point buy, for those "balanced tables" and my relentless ennui. :smallbiggrin:

Get 27 pts, roll 1d8 -1 as you go down the Ability stats, spending points as determined by the Ability increase of the roll. Be sure to spend all 27 pts.

i.e. Roll 1d8-1 for STR, get an 8-1=7. Your STR stat will be 8 plus this 7, starting at 15. You spend 9 pts to get STR 15.

i.e.2. Roll 1d8-1 for STR DEX CON, get a 1-1=0 three times in a row. STR DEX CON will all start at 8s. Since you must spend all your points the rest of INT WIS CHA will all start at 15s.

Quick and easy random point buy. :smallcool:

This is intresting but why not 7+1d8? It's litterally the same thing but less confusing.

[prabe]

That would fit the rules. Of course, there are ways to punish people for tanking a stat that badly, and I'm willing to do so. Since the handout I give the players says the purpose is to allow flexibility, not to encourage relentless optimization, I wouldn't feel bad about dropping INT saves on that paladin and/or putting him in a position where there was thinking involved; nor would I feel bad about dropping STR saves on that wizard and/or putting him in a position where he had to use his physical might to solve a problem. I *might* be kind and ask the player to come up with something mroe well-rounded, especially if everyone else at the table did.

So far, there hasn't been much pushing of things. I've adjusted things because of players, but I haven't yet had anyone try to optimize the fun out of it, yet.

Actually, I really don't like being an antogonistic GM.

If no one else at the table was optimizing so relentlessly, I'd point that out to the player who tanked something to a 5.

I'd point out that the system I'm using is intended to allow and encourage flexibility and creativity and non-standard class-race pairings, not to enable that degree of optimization.

I'd mention that my homebrew campaigns tend to include (feature?) entire sessions without any combat, as people do skill things--research, or social interaction, or whatever else. Tanking a score might result in their character having nothing to do in such an instance, and the player being bored, and any blame for that would be on the player.

If none of the above convinced the player to make something more in keeping with the intent of the system, I'd introduce a new rule along the lines of "You may not have more than three points of ability penalties, and you may not have more than two of those points on any one ability score," and I'd make that ex post facto and instruct the player to make a character that fit that rule as well as the others. A determined player could probably still find an exploit, but at some point it's not a hill worth dying on.

[KorvinStarmast]

A couple of other ideas that are pretty good.

Split 25 (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/133609/22566):

Split 25.

Roll 4d6 drop lowest three times.
If any of them came up less than 7, treat it as a 7.
Subtract each of those three numbers from 25.
There's your stat array.


Example 1:
Roll 15, 14, and 13 {subtract each from 25} so you also have 10, an 11, and a 12.
Example 2:
Roll 18, 17, and 16, {subtract each from 25} you also have a 7, an 8, and a 9.

Notes:
a. When you get a good roll, you also get a bad roll.
b. You'll always have three odds and three evens.

Some characters are better with unbalanced stats than others, usually casters who can use magic to make up for physical deficiencies. But it works at making the rolls as a whole feel less unfair.




And "pick from the pool" (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/133360/22566)

Example
Bob rolls 8, 12, 12, 13, 14, 14
Mark rolls 12, 14, 15, 16, 16, 17
Anne rolls 9, 11, 12, 15, 15, 16

These all go in a pool and the first pick order is Mark, Anne, Bob. As stated, first players choose in order, then in reverse order, then in forward order again and so on.

1st pick: Mark 17, Anne 16, Bob 16
2nd pick: Bob 16, Anne 15, Mark 15
3rd pick: Mark 15, Anne 14, Bob 14
4th pick: Bob 14, Anne 13, Mark 12
5th pick: Mark 12, Anne 12, Bob 12
6th pick: Bob: 11, Anne 9, Mark 8
The end result is:
Mark: 17, 15, 15, 12, 12, 8
Anne: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 9
Bob: 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 11