Balancing the Rolling Dice method for Ability Scores

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

Hi, I'll be DMing a 5e campaing soon and want to provide a different method on the ability score points for my players (mixing the dice rolling method with the others to keep the players somewhat balanced). Can you please tell me if this will work?

Step 1: Players will be using the regular dice rolling method (roll 4d6, remove the worst value dice, doing this for six times each for one ability score)

Step 2: Apply "Buff" or "Nerf" (see below)

Buff:
If the total sum on the dice result in < 69 then + 1 in all ability scores till the total sum reach between 69 and 75

Nerf:
If the total sum on the dice result in > 75 then - 1 in all ability scores till the total sum reach between 69 and 75

(If the Buff or Nerf result in > than 18 or < than 3 in any individual ability score = reroll)

What do you guys think? This will work? I want my players to have the unpredictable fun of rolling for stats without the risk of ruining their character or being too op (some of them are new to DnD). I used the 69 - 75 gap because this is the average sum for the other methods (minimum of 69 and maximum of 75 on point buy or 72 on standard array).

Thanks!:smallsmile:

[DarknessEternal]

If you want balanced, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and use points buy.

If you don't want balanced, use dice.

You clearly want to use points buy with this convoluted scheme.

[Dr. Cliché]

It seems rather weird to punish people for rolling well.

Also, consider the following scenario:

Player A's scores total 74
Player B's scores total 75

Per your rules, Player B must reduce all his scores by 1, resulting in a total of 69.

So Player A - in spite of rolling 1pt lower than Player B - ends up with scores that are 5pts higher.

I fear I'm not seeing the balance here. :smallconfused:

[Pex]

Perhaps try the following which I learned many years ago. It's a combination of dice rolling and point buy.

1) Roll 4d6 drop lowest three times. Any roll below 7 is 7. These are your first three scores.

2) Take any one rolled score and subtract it from 27. Any value above 18 is 18. This is your fourth score.

3) Take a second rolled score and subtract it from 25. This is your fifth score.

4) The last rolled score is subtracted from 23 for the sixth score.

5) Add +2 to any one score. Arrange as desired and apply racial modifiers. A score can become 20 here but max is 20.

Example, wanting to play a variant human paladin:

1) I just rolled 12, 18, 7

2) 27 - 18 = 9

3) 25 - 7 = 18

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 12 + 2 = 14, add the variant human + 1 modifiers to the 9 and 7, get the final array of:

ST 18 DX 11 CO 14 IN 8 WI 12 CH 18 and a feat

Certainly a strong character. Can afford to pick up more feats at levels 4 and 8. I happened to roll extreme with an 18 and 7.

Let's try variant human cleric

1) 13, 11, 7

2) 27 - 11 = 16

3) 25 - 7 = 18

4) 23 - 13 = 10

5) 16 + 2 = 18, 7 + 1 = 8, 13 + 1 = 14

ST 11 DX 14 CO 18 IN 10 WI 18 CH 8

A very healthy cleric, prefers to use his spells and cantrips as opposed to melee. Works well with the paladin.

Variant human wizard

1) 12, 15, 11

2) 27 - 11 = 16

3) 25 - 15 = 10

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 16 + 2 = 18, 15 + 1 = 16, 11 + 1 = 12

ST 10 DX 12 CO 16 IN 18 WI 12 CH 11

Some people might prefer DX 16 CO 12, but I firmly believe in the adventurer's tax of must have at least 14 CO. Only has one 18 where the others have 2 but character has no negative modifier. Still, some might say his overall array is weaker than the others which happens in dice rolling, but it's not that much weaker. The array is still quite good.

Despite the different values of the dice rolling part the point buy part makes its correction to bring everyone into equivalent arrays. The resulting arrays are stronger than what you get with 5E Point Buy, but in my opinion that's a feature not a bug. Point Buy as a concept is fine. As personal opinion 5E's implementation of it is terrible.

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

It seems rather weird to punish people for rolling well.

Also, consider the following scenario:

Player A's scores total 74
Player B's scores total 75

Per your rules, Player B must reduce all his scores by 1, resulting in a total of 69.

So Player A - in spite of rolling 1pt lower than Player B - ends up with scores that are 5pts higher.

I fear I'm not seeing the balance here. :smallconfused:

Hi, thanks for answering! Just to clarify, on this example Player B would be fine with 75 total (76 and up above would suffer the nerf).

But if:

Player A rolled a 74
Player B rolled a 76

Then yes, Player B would end with less points than Player A (-6 points due to a "Nerf", going to stay at 70). The maximum score for a Player is 108 (assuming six times a 18 score) and minimum is 18 (assuming six times a 3 score). The average rolling results point would be around 45 I think, maybe higher due to the chance to discard the less valuable dice and the 0,5 on dice rolls math. I think it is a safer bet for the players if they know they wont be super powerful in the beginning but also not super awful

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

Perhaps try the following which I learned many years ago. It's a combination of dice rolling and point buy.

1) Roll 4d6 drop lowest three times. Any roll below 7 is 7. These are your first three scores.

2) Take any one rolled score and subtract it from 27. Any value above 18 is 18. This is your fourth score.

3) Take a second rolled score and subtract it from 25. This is your fifth score.

4) The last rolled score is subtracted from 23 for the sixth score.

5) Add +2 to any one score. Arrange as desired and apply racial modifiers. A score can become 20 here but max is 20.

Example, wanting to play a variant human paladin:

1) I just rolled 12, 18, 7

2) 27 - 18 = 9

3) 25 - 7 = 18

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 12 + 2 = 14, add the variant human + 1 modifiers to the 9 and 7, get the final array of:

ST 18 DX 11 CO 14 IN 8 WI 12 CH 18 and a feat

Certainly a strong character. Can afford to pick up more feats at levels 4 and 8. I happened to roll extreme with an 18 and 7.

Let's try variant human cleric

1) 13, 11, 7

2) 27 - 11 = 16

3) 25 - 7 = 18

4) 23 - 13 = 10

5) 16 + 2 = 18, 7 + 1 = 8, 13 + 1 = 14

ST 11 DX 14 CO 18 IN 10 WI 18 CH 8

A very healthy cleric, prefers to use his spells and cantrips as opposed to melee. Works well with the paladin.

Variant human wizard

1) 12, 15, 11

2) 27 - 11 = 16

3) 25 - 15 = 10

4) 23 - 12 = 11

5) 16 + 2 = 18, 15 + 1 = 16, 11 + 1 = 12

ST 10 DX 12 CO 16 IN 18 WI 12 CH 11

Some people might prefer DX 16 CO 12, but I firmly believe in the adventurer's tax of must have at least 14 CO. Only has one 18 where the others have 2 but character has no negative modifier. Still, some might say his overall array is weaker than the others which happens in dice rolling, but it's not that much weaker. The array is still quite good.

Despite the different values of the dice rolling part the point buy part makes its correction to bring everyone into equivalent arrays. The resulting arrays are stronger than what you get with 5E Point Buy, but in my opinion that's a feature not a bug. Point Buy as a concept is fine. As personal opinion 5E's implementation of it is terrible.

Hi Pex, thanks for answering and the suggestion! So, I did the math on your method with the minimum possible (3,3,3 sequence) and a maximum possible (18,18,18 sequence) and come with those results:

A) Minimum Possible (3,3,3 sequence)

Dice Results: (3)* 7,(3) 7,(3) 7

27 - 7 = (20) 18
25 - 7 = 18
23 - 7 = 16

18+2 = 20

Final Scores: 20, 18, 16, 7, 7, 7

Total: 75

B) Maximum Possible (18,18,18 sequence)

Dice Results: 18, 18, 18

27 - 18 = 9
25 - 18 = 7
23 - 18 = 5

18 + 2 = 20

Final Scores: 20, 18, 18, 9, 7, 5

Total = 77

* = Parenthesis value are the "true" results


So in the end both values (77 and 75) result in being above the average score (72) on point buy and fixed ability scores listed on phb.

Nevertheless, I found it a very interesting method! And fun! Do you think we can adjust those values somehow to go from 77-75 to 74-72 range?

[ZorroGames]

If you want balanced, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and use points buy.

If you don't want balanced, use dice.

You clearly want to use points buy with this convoluted scheme.

Pretty much this. Standard Array should be available in case someone wants really simple. Plug and play stats.

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

If you want balanced, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and use points buy.

If you don't want balanced, use dice.

You clearly want to use points buy with this convoluted scheme.


Hi, thanks for the input. You might be right, points buy can still be a funny thing to do. I'm just a bit worried with may playmates going crazy ove optimization but perhaps this will give them freedom while sticking to RAW. I will give it a thought!

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

Pretty much this. Standard Array should be available in case someone wants really simple. Plug and play stats.

Yep, on a second thought this might be for the best. In fact I will just listen to what they want (points buy, arranged or my "convoluted rolling dice scheme" :smallbiggrin:) and adjust accordingly

[Barny]

{scrubbed}

[ZorroGames]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Wow, people think I am harsh!

And that evaluation is probably somewhat true (the me being harsh part, which I consider adult conversation blunt but I am biased I know.) OP has not indicated such was the case though and if there are newbies it is probably more of a session zero matter?

[ZorroGames]

Yep, on a second thought this might be for the best. In fact I will just listen to what they want (points buy, arranged or my "convoluted rolling dice scheme" :smallbiggrin:) and adjust accordingly

Hey if it makes for fun go for it. I am an oldster who found 0D&D 3D6 in order gave me a few characters with nothing above 10 sometimes. In other words I may be biased.

[HappyDaze]

I find that Standard Array is best. It avoids the imbalance of random rolls and minimizes the min-maxing of point-buy.

[Safety Sword]

For a DMing perspective, an array (whether you use the standard one or another custom one) is great because across the party you have a pretty well defined range of bonuses that you need to set DCs against etc.

Plus, it's by far the fairest method. Everyone gets the same thing.

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Hi Barny, thanks for the input. I honestly have no idea about my playmates power hunger-ish tendencies. I never played DnD with them and we live in different States... I'm trying to evaluate things more trough a "learning curve", just focusing on the fun, dropping the wrongs and seeing where it goes!

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

Hey if it makes for fun go for it. I am an oldster who found 0D&D 3D6 in order gave me a few characters with nothing above 10 sometimes. In other words I may be biased.

All experience counts I only played 5e (and did some forums rps) my entire life. So thanks!

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

I find that Standard Array is best. It avoids the imbalance of random rolls and minimizes the min-maxing of point-buy.

Interesting! I never played with the Standard Array. No one I played before liked it more than the other methods. But you're right, it can counter pretty much both point buy and dice rolling. I will give it a place within my players options for character creation and explain those advantages.

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

For a DMing perspective, an array (whether you use the standard one or another custom one) is great because across the party you have a pretty well defined range of bonuses that you need to set DCs against etc.

Plus, it's by far the fairest method. Everyone gets the same thing.

Hi Safety Sword, no doubt the Array have those strong pros you mentioned. I will consider it among the options on my table (I will say that it might be the easiest for me to do the maths as you mentioned). Perhaps this will even help to dedicate our attention to other game elements than min maxing or going crazy with random stats. Thanks!

[JoeJ]

Your goal as I understand it is to allow some swinginess without messing up balance, right? One thing you might do is to have every player roll one complete array of six scores, then allows each player to choose whichever of the arrays they wish (the full array only, not mix and match).

[KyleG]

Your goal as I understand it is to allow some swinginess without messing up balance, right? One thing you might do is to have every player roll one complete array of six scores, then allows each player to choose whichever of the arrays they wish (the full array only, not mix and match).

Or you all roll in order and then collectively pick a stat each that works with you character concept.

[Pex]

Hi Pex, thanks for answering and the suggestion! So, I did the math on your method with the minimum possible (3,3,3 sequence) and a maximum possible (18,18,18 sequence) and come with those results:

A) Minimum Possible (3,3,3 sequence)

Dice Results: (3)* 7,(3) 7,(3) 7

27 - 7 = (20) 18
25 - 7 = 18
23 - 7 = 16

18+2 = 20

Final Scores: 20, 18, 16, 7, 7, 7

Total: 75

B) Maximum Possible (18,18,18 sequence)

Dice Results: 18, 18, 18

27 - 18 = 9
25 - 18 = 7
23 - 18 = 5

18 + 2 = 20

Final Scores: 20, 18, 18, 9, 7, 5

Total = 77

* = Parenthesis value are the "true" results


So in the end both values (77 and 75) result in being above the average score (72) on point buy and fixed ability scores listed on phb.

Nevertheless, I found it a very interesting method! And fun! Do you think we can adjust those values somehow to go from 77-75 to 74-72 range?

Doh! I forgot there is a minimum of 7 so the 5 would be a 7 giving value 77 for both.

Anyway, for lower adjustment to taste there are options like don't have the +2 at the end or use 25/23/21. You might try the first three scores being straight 3d6 rolls, but even 4d6 best 3 you almost don't want to roll an 18 because best case 27 - 18 = 9 you will have a negative modifier no matter what you need to waste a racial modifier or the +2 on if you don't want it. I also used in my opinion the easiest case variant human where you can choose where to place the modifiers. Playing another race you have less flexibility. You might have to take two -1 modifiers in your array because you need to bump a 13 for your class or CO if you believe in the adventurer's tax. Try the numbers with different racial modifiers. See how that looks to you. If anything even the original method might encourage less common race/class combinations. You might see a halfling barbarian because the method allows an 18 for ST while you can use racial modifier and +2 bonus to pump a 13 into a good DX even if you have an 8 and 9 to keep and place elsewhere.

[Amechra]

c.r.i.s.e.l., I can see one immediate issue with your method.

Consider the (somewhat unlikely) roll of 18, 18, 3, 3, 3, 3. The sum here is 48, so I would get to add +4 to all of my ability scores (because that brings me up to 72). But that, you know, leaves me at 22, 22, 7, 7, 7, 7.

A system I kinda like (granted, I've never used it myself) is as follows:

1) Roll 9d6, then arrange them into a 3x3 square.
2) For each row, add up the dice. Those are your first three stats.
3) For each column, add up the dice and subtract that from 21. Those are your last three stats.

That gives you a set of stats that always adds up to 63. If you want higher stats, just follow it up by letting players split some number of points between their stats on a 1-for-1 basis, to whatever stat maximum you decide on. I kinda like the idea of capping your buy-up at 15 - it makes any 16+ stats you scored feel more special, and anyone with stats that high has to have lower stats, so it's not like they won't have things to spend their points on.

[HappyDaze]

Interesting! I never played with the Standard Array. No one I played before liked it more than the other methods. But you're right, it can counter pretty much both point buy and dice rolling. I will give it a place within my players options for character creation and explain those advantages.

Just watch for players that try to talk you into point-buy instead because "it's the same values" while promising they don't intend to min-max... Then they explain how a set of 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 (arranged as they desire) "fits their character so much better than 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 ever could."

[ezekielraiden]

If you want randomness, there's a much easier method than all of this stuff. Make a deck of cards, containing exactly 18 cards. Deal them out into piles of 3. Each pile is the value for a stat. Now you're guaranteed to get a sum within a specific range, and there's no calculation, nor any need to re-calibrate scores. If a player doesn't like their "hands," deal again.

From there, it's a matter of deciding where you want your approximate average to be. For example, a deck that (theoretically) corresponds to "3d6" would just have three of each card from Ace through 6, but that will result in fairly low average stats (e.g. unless you draw all three sixes in the same triplet, it's completely impossible to get an 18). Therefore, I like to do something like the following: {A,A,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,8,9} With this deck, the lowest possible score is 4 (A,A,2), and if you get that, you're very likely to get strong scores elsewhere. If you wanted, you could even replace the two aces with 2s, so that the lowest possible score is 6--low, but not cripplingly awful in most games. Obviously, since you can now get total scores higher than 18, you treat that as the maximum. This means that characters with highly specialized stats (most/all high-value cards in just a couple stast) are only slightly penalized, while those with more "spread out" stats are never penalized (e.g. if you get 7+3+4, that's only 14.)

Of course, it's a little bit harder if you're trying to do this over the internet, but it looks like this page might be able to do it. http://deckofcardsapi.com/ It's a bit janky, but it works alright. I used this deck: {2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,8,9} and it gave the following results:
4,3,8 = 15
3,5,5 = 13
9,6,3 = 18
7,4,5 = 16
2,4,6 = 12
6,2,2 = 10

Strong, but diverse. Might be worth dropping the 8 and 9 down to 7s (a net reduction of about 3 points to the total score). This also has the added benefit that there are very few possible triplets you'll need to trim (e.g. only those containing a 7 might qualify), and the absolute maximum people could lose would be 3 points, so everyone's stats with this modified deck (3 of each number from 2 to 7) will be in a range from 78-81. Since you already know what you want your acceptable stat range is, you just have to find a deck that matches that value.

This method is still "random," but guaranteed to be fair in the sense you're seeking (same "base stat total"). And unless you need it to work specifically online, it's MUCH, MUCH easier, requiring at very most a check to see if any stats were over 18.

[MoiMagnus]

Why do you want randomness?

1) You want chaos: don't add a weird layer of balance on it.

2) You want to counter minmaxers: Probably not the best way to proceed. If minmaxers are a problem at your table, them having a 16 instead of a 18 will not change anything... Talking with your problematic players is better than adopting an adversary posture.

3) You want to force some unusual ability values: rolling once and giving to everyone the same roll (up to permutations) works quite well. Or better, you roll until you find a result that please you and give it to everyone (up to permutations)

4) You want to force some unusual ability repartition: same as (3) except you forbid permutations but generate multiple choices for your players (like one per player +2)

5) I want players to roll dice in front of me: Each player generate "best 3 of 4d6" once for each ability and put them in the common pool at the middle (organised per ability). Then every player will chose for his character one of the 6 biggest value (one per ability), roving it from the pool, using clockwise-counterclockwise turn order. (example at 3 players: ABCCBAABCCBAABCCBA...). [Note: this method assume your players are not the kind of players that will give to one character all the bad values and let it die].

[Witty Username]

I wouldn't worry about dice rolls being unbalanced, it tends to have about the same effect as race selection, so about +-5%, on d20 rolls, and usually to non-primary stats. In case of crisis, let unfortunate players reroll. Hard fast rules tend to not work very well for roll ajustment.

[opaopajr]

Random Point Buy!

1d8-1 per ability stat. That's the Ability Stat increase added to 8 -- zero through seven. Next convert that stat increase into its equivalent i points for Point Buy. Then subtract that from the Point Buy Pool of 27 until all points are spent. All points must be spent, so later rolls will ignore values that leave points behind. :smallsmile:

[Solusek]

One thing I like to do is let everyone at the table roll a set of stats. 4d6 drop lowest. Have them write down their 6 numbers. Players can then each choose anyone's roll to use. No one is stuck with a roll worse than anyone else unless they choose to be.

[Smoothjedi]

One thing I like to do is let everyone at the table roll a set of stats. 4d6 drop lowest. Have them write down their 6 numbers. Players can then each choose anyone's roll to use. No one is stuck with a roll worse than anyone else unless they choose to be.

I was scanning this thread looking to see if anyone else did this, as this is the method I have been using. I will also typically set a floor of 7 as others suggested. What I really hate is when someone gets super lucky and gets a stat block like 18/17/14/14/12/12 or something and everyone else rolls under the standard point buy. Honestly even if someone got 3 18s on a roll, it's so much easier to balance encounters if everyone has three 18s rather than one guy is amazing and everyone else is made of paper. I always give them the option of the standard point buy as well in case everyone at the table rolls worse than it, or even if rolls are marginally better, the numbers don't line up for what they need.

[c.r.i.s.e.l]

Your goal as I understand it is to allow some swinginess without messing up balance, right? One thing you might do is to have every player roll one complete array of six scores, then allows each player to choose whichever of the arrays they wish (the full array only, not mix and match).


Or you all roll in order and then collectively pick a stat each that works with you character concept.

Hi Joej and KyleG, you're right I want the fun unpredictability of rolling dices without losing the balance. I'm not a fan myself of shared scores between players (but I think the problem is me overthinking things like: someone will be unhappy because someone "stole" his good roll). Even if they put all the rolls together (as a cake) and then take it, still mathematically the game can be unbalanced depending on those rolls, and still people will get bigger pieces with a strawberry on top, while others will be getting less... I don't know. Nevertheless I will present this option also to the players. Thank you!


Doh! I forgot there is a minimum of 7 so the 5 would be a 7 giving value 77 for both.

Anyway, for lower adjustment to taste there are options like don't have the +2 at the end or use 25/23/21. You might try the first three scores being straight 3d6 rolls, but even 4d6 best 3 you almost don't want to roll an 18 because best case 27 - 18 = 9 you will have a negative modifier no matter what you need to waste a racial modifier or the +2 on if you don't want it. I also used in my opinion the easiest case variant human where you can choose where to place the modifiers. Playing another race you have less flexibility. You might have to take two -1 modifiers in your array because you need to bump a 13 for your class or CO if you believe in the adventurer's tax. Try the numbers with different racial modifiers. See how that looks to you. If anything even the original method might encourage less common race/class combinations. You might see a halfling barbarian because the method allows an 18 for ST while you can use racial modifier and +2 bonus to pump a 13 into a good DX even if you have an 8 and 9 to keep and place elsewhere.

Thank you Pex I will try to adjust those numbers :)


c.r.i.s.e.l., I can see one immediate issue with your method.

Consider the (somewhat unlikely) roll of 18, 18, 3, 3, 3, 3. The sum here is 48, so I would get to add +4 to all of my ability scores (because that brings me up to 72). But that, you know, leaves me at 22, 22, 7, 7, 7, 7.

A system I kinda like (granted, I've never used it myself) is as follows:

1) Roll 9d6, then arrange them into a 3x3 square.
2) For each row, add up the dice. Those are your first three stats.
3) For each column, add up the dice and subtract that from 21. Those are your last three stats.

That gives you a set of stats that always adds up to 63. If you want higher stats, just follow it up by letting players split some number of points between their stats on a 1-for-1 basis, to whatever stat maximum you decide on. I kinda like the idea of capping your buy-up at 15 - it makes any 16+ stats you scored feel more special, and anyone with stats that high has to have lower stats, so it's not like they won't have things to spend their points on.


Hi Amechra just to clarify, if such a thing happens (a score 18, 18, 3, 3, 3, 3), the person will need to reroll (as I stated on the method). About the 9d6 3x3 square method, that is awesome! I just tested and is really nice to control the maximum value! Perhaps I can try to adjust to 72 instead of 63. I will definitely keep this method as one of the options thanks for share!



If you want randomness, there's a much easier method than all of this stuff. Make a deck of cards, containing exactly 18 cards. Deal them out into piles of 3. Each pile is the value for a stat. Now you're guaranteed to get a sum within a specific range, and there's no calculation, nor any need to re-calibrate scores. If a player doesn't like their "hands," deal again.

From there, it's a matter of deciding where you want your approximate average to be. For example, a deck that (theoretically) corresponds to "3d6" would just have three of each card from Ace through 6, but that will result in fairly low average stats (e.g. unless you draw all three sixes in the same triplet, it's completely impossible to get an 18). Therefore, I like to do something like the following: {A,A,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,8,9} With this deck, the lowest possible score is 4 (A,A,2), and if you get that, you're very likely to get strong scores elsewhere. If you wanted, you could even replace the two aces with 2s, so that the lowest possible score is 6--low, but not cripplingly awful in most games. Obviously, since you can now get total scores higher than 18, you treat that as the maximum. This means that characters with highly specialized stats (most/all high-value cards in just a couple stast) are only slightly penalized, while those with more "spread out" stats are never penalized (e.g. if you get 7+3+4, that's only 14.)

Of course, it's a little bit harder if you're trying to do this over the internet, but it looks like this page might be able to do it. http://deckofcardsapi.com/ It's a bit janky, but it works alright. I used this deck: {2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,8,9} and it gave the following results:
4,3,8 = 15
3,5,5 = 13
9,6,3 = 18
7,4,5 = 16
2,4,6 = 12
6,2,2 = 10

Strong, but diverse. Might be worth dropping the 8 and 9 down to 7s (a net reduction of about 3 points to the total score). This also has the added benefit that there are very few possible triplets you'll need to trim (e.g. only those containing a 7 might qualify), and the absolute maximum people could lose would be 3 points, so everyone's stats with this modified deck (3 of each number from 2 to 7) will be in a range from 78-81. Since you already know what you want your acceptable stat range is, you just have to find a deck that matches that value.

This method is still "random," but guaranteed to be fair in the sense you're seeking (same "base stat total"). And unless you need it to work specifically online, it's MUCH, MUCH easier, requiring at very most a check to see if any stats were over 18.


Hi Ezekielraiden, thank you for sharing this method. I've never heard before of deciding ability scores trough cards and its amazing! As you said this seem a lot easier and more interactive in the presence of the players. I will try to elaborate a custom deck with the app you presented. Thanks for sharing!



Why do you want randomness?

1) You want chaos: don't add a weird layer of balance on it.

2) You want to counter minmaxers: Probably not the best way to proceed. If minmaxers are a problem at your table, them having a 16 instead of a 18 will not change anything... Talking with your problematic players is better than adopting an adversary posture.

3) You want to force some unusual ability values: rolling once and giving to everyone the same roll (up to permutations) works quite well. Or better, you roll until you find a result that please you and give it to everyone (up to permutations)

4) You want to force some unusual ability repartition: same as (3) except you forbid permutations but generate multiple choices for your players (like one per player +2)

5) I want players to roll dice in front of me: Each player generate "best 3 of 4d6" once for each ability and put them in the common pool at the middle (organised per ability). Then every player will chose for his character one of the 6 biggest value (one per ability), roving it from the pool, using clockwise-counterclockwise turn order. (example at 3 players: ABCCBAABCCBAABCCBA...). [Note: this method assume your players are not the kind of players that will give to one character all the bad values and let it die].


Hi MoiMagnus, this method is interesting, but cannot prevent the unbalancing randomness... JoeJ and KyleG proposed a similar method of sharing rolls between players, but I honestly don't know if this can solve too strong or too weak rolls. I mean... even shared chaos is still chaos, right? Nevertheless, thank you for adding more interesting ways to divide the rolls between the players, I will present them this possibility too, regardless of my personal feelings.



I wouldn't worry about dice rolls being unbalanced, it tends to have about the same effect as race selection, so about +-5%, on d20 rolls, and usually to non-primary stats. In case of crisis, let unfortunate players reroll. Hard fast rules tend to not work very well for roll ajustment.

Hi Witty, thanks for answering. I do really worry. Things can get out of control pretty hard and I'm not talking about me doing more complex math to adjust things (in any case, this is "my job") but I fear unbalancing can really steal the fun for some "unlucky" players for a considerate time... but those are personal worries, you might be right. I just don't want to be caught off guard with a thing so simple that - yet - can put my players in a bad mood. I will try to cover those hard fast rules with a good talk with them about all the methods I'm learning here and the new views on old ones (such as standard array) while correcting flaws of my own.


Random Point Buy!

1d8-1 per ability stat. That's the Ability Stat increase added to 8 -- zero through seven. Next convert that stat increase into its equivalent i points for Point Buy. Then subtract that from the Point Buy Pool of 27 until all points are spent. All points must be spent, so later rolls will ignore values that leave points behind. :smallsmile:

Hi opaopa, so, to be clear, if someone get super lucky and roll 8 (or 7 = 8-1) x6 on those point buy dices, they would ignore the last extra values too? And if someone get super cursed and roll 1 (or 0 = 1-1) this person could add the points till 27? Seems interesting, but I'm not sure on how to do it, can you show an example? Thanks!


One thing I like to do is let everyone at the table roll a set of stats. 4d6 drop lowest. Have them write down their 6 numbers. Players can then each choose anyone's roll to use. No one is stuck with a roll worse than anyone else unless they choose to be.


I was scanning this thread looking to see if anyone else did this, as this is the method I have been using. I will also typically set a floor of 7 as others suggested. What I really hate is when someone gets super lucky and gets a stat block like 18/17/14/14/12/12 or something and everyone else rolls under the standard point buy. Honestly even if someone got 3 18s on a roll, it's so much easier to balance encounters if everyone has three 18s rather than one guy is amazing and everyone else is made of paper. I always give them the option of the standard point buy as well in case everyone at the table rolls worse than it, or even if rolls are marginally better, the numbers don't line up for what they need.

Hi Soulsek and Smoothjedi, this method of everyone picking others rolls might do good putting strong and weak stats arranged, but they still don't fully prevent the unbalancing off of dice rolling. Some pretty weird rolls can kick in, and that's why rerolling or having a backup plan (such as being able to choose standard array regardless of rolls) are needed. I will present them this option too, so they might find it a funny thing to do. Thanks for sharing!

[Laserlight]

Roll 2-3 sets of stats yourself and let your players choose which set they want.

[Smoothjedi]

Hi Soulsek and Smoothjedi, this method of everyone picking others rolls might do good putting strong and weak stats arranged, but they still don't fully prevent the unbalancing off of dice rolling. Some pretty weird rolls can kick in, and that's why rerolling or having a backup plan (such as being able to choose standard array regardless of rolls) are needed. I will present them this option too, so they might find it a funny thing to do. Thanks for sharing!

Yeah, I don't think there's really any way to force d6s to do what you want. With the point buy safety net in place, I think it's fun for players to see if they can roll up good scores for the team.

However in stark contrast though, when the players level up, should they choose to roll their hit points whatever they get is permanent; I only allow them to take the static increase if they don't roll to raise the stakes.

[NOMster]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7xb11j/alternative_to_point_buy_5e/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body


This is my favorite point buy system. Basically it uses 6 as a total for what your modifiers can equal when added together.

If rolling use 2d6+6. (You can allow rerolls of 1 stat if they get 2 bummers).

[Solusek]

Hi Soulsek and Smoothjedi, this method of everyone picking others rolls might do good putting strong and weak stats arranged, but they still don't fully prevent the unbalancing off of dice rolling. Some pretty weird rolls can kick in, and that's why rerolling or having a backup plan (such as being able to choose standard array regardless of rolls) are needed. I will present them this option too, so they might find it a funny thing to do. Thanks for sharing!

Yes, but "weird rolls" is kind of the point of rolling stats, right? You want things to feel a bit more organic than everyone point buying into 15/14/14/10/10/8 right?

Keep in mind, with this table rolling method everyone could choose to use the SAME persons rolls. If one player rolls better than everyone else I expect most people will just select that stat array to use - but even so it will probably not be the exact perfect stats for everyone. It will look a little bit more natural than a point-buy character does.

As an experiment let me go roll up stats four times (as if a 4 player party) to demonstrate what it could look like:

Player A: 11, 14, 13, 15, 8, 14
Player B: 14, 10, 15, 9, 12, 4
Player C: 10, 7, 12, 13, 8, 10
Player D: 11, 12, 11, 15, 8, 17

Okay, in this scenario clearly player B and C have some poor rolls. A and D both did pretty well, though. I suspect there would be interest in using both of those arrays for different character types.

[JNAProductions]

Two solutions, not sure if either's been mentioned:

1) The Matrix. Roll 6 sets of stats, using whatever method you like (4d6b3 is a good one). Arrange them in a 6X6 grid. Players may choose ANY row, column, or diagonal. All players have access to the same matrix. This pretty much guarantees players will have a good array, but what array will vary. Maybe the Wizard, who only really wants Int, picks a column with an 18 and the rest mediocre, while the Monk's highest stat is a 15, but nothing below a 13.

2) Player Empowerment. This is what I usually do. Let players make up their own array, with six numbers 3-18. These are their stats. Any player may modify their array freely before the game starts, if they see they're too high or too low relative to the other players.

[ad_hoc]

If you want random stats while keeping the same sum then use playing cards.

Takes the 2s-6s and remove 2 4s.

That gives you 18 cards to put into 6 piles with an average score of 12 per pile.

[Amechra]

I wouldn't worry about dice rolls being unbalanced, it tends to have about the same effect as race selection, so about +-5%, on d20 rolls, and usually to non-primary stats. In case of crisis, let unfortunate players reroll. Hard fast rules tend to not work very well for roll ajustment.

I've been in games where some players rolled nothing higher than a 14, and where others rolled nothing lower than a 14. While that is admittedly unlikely, it's still possible.

That being said, I like the "all modifiers have to add up to 6" system that NOMster linked. I'll have to give that a go sometime.

[Smoothjedi]

I've been in games where some players rolled nothing higher than a 14, and where others rolled nothing lower than a 14. While that is admittedly unlikely, it's still possible.

That being said, I like the "all modifiers have to add up to 6" system that NOMster linked. I'll have to give that a go sometime.

This is why I like allowing any player to take any other player's stat block. It's far easier to balance the game as a DM when everyone is at the same power level, even if it is significantly higher than point buy.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The game was designed around standard array. Use it.

If you got someone who really wants it, point buy is ok. But rolling AS is a pointless anachronism.

I've had a party try to push me into rolling. I know the outcome will be human nature. So I said, "Take all 18s. I'll have all monsters at max HP. Fair enough?" They took standard array, and the game proceeded.

[Nagog]

I like this method, but I'd suggest some adjustments:

Rather than a flat +/- 1 to all scores until they're in the range, give those points to the player to allot as they see fit. That way, if they roll well for all stats, but don't lose points in their most useful stat to balance out rolling well in their dump stat. With this, however I'd also stipulate that base stats cannot exceed 18 before applying racial or other bonuses. It'll keep everything within range, but allow people to specialize a bit better if they roll above the 75 mark.

[Cwyll]

just go with everyone rolls (rerolling if the total pre modification is under 70 or over 85).
List all the rolls that everyone got, and then all players can use any of the roll sets made.
Gives a bit of variability, should suit the power players as well as the role players.
It's also fair and equitable to all.

[Demonslayer666]

Hi, I'll be DMing a 5e campaing soon and want to provide a different method on the ability score points for my players (mixing the dice rolling method with the others to keep the players somewhat balanced). Can you please tell me if this will work?

Step 1: Players will be using the regular dice rolling method (roll 4d6, remove the worst value dice, doing this for six times each for one ability score)

Step 2: Apply "Buff" or "Nerf" (see below)

Buff:
If the total sum on the dice result in < 69 then + 1 in all ability scores till the total sum reach between 69 and 75

Nerf:
If the total sum on the dice result in > 75 then - 1 in all ability scores till the total sum reach between 69 and 75

(If the Buff or Nerf result in > than 18 or < than 3 in any individual ability score = reroll)

What do you guys think? This will work? I want my players to have the unpredictable fun of rolling for stats without the risk of ruining their character or being too op (some of them are new to DnD). I used the 69 - 75 gap because this is the average sum for the other methods (minimum of 69 and maximum of 75 on point buy or 72 on standard array).

Thanks!:smallsmile:

I would recommend that you avoid nerfing all together. Have the players roll, and give buffs to those that rolled poorly and allow a reroll for those that roll exceptionally bad.

When starting play, I give out bonuses for having your character completed on time, a good back story, and answering my personality questions, and I give out a little more to those that rolled low to keep the balance.

[Doug Lampert]

2) Player Empowerment. This is what I usually do. Let players make up their own array, with six numbers 3-18. These are their stats. Any player may modify their array freely before the game starts, if they see they're too high or too low relative to the other players.

This!

I've said before, the common feature of almost all custom die rolling methods is that they give "very high" average ability scores compared to BtB rolling or point buy. The 5th edition point buy doesn't allow anything higher than 15 prior to racials, which is silly. Meanwhile, people come up with rolling methods which make multiple 18s likely, and a 20 possible (the 23, 25, 27 method, which I like for a rolling method), or far more generous methods I've seen on other discussions. Or there are things like roll a large number of arrays or a matrix and then everyone picks one (both almost guaranteed to be far more powerful on average than the base rolling method).

Ask yourself if maybe the appeal of rolling is that it lets you start with an 18 or 20 in your main ability.

A lot of the appeal of rolling appears to be the very high values that it allows. Yet, IME, if you tell people, "just pick a value", they don't usually pick all 18s, because they understand that (a) it's a game, it's supposed to be fun and that means having some flaws, and (b) only one side brings finite resources to the table, you aren't going to "win" D&D no matter what numbers you put on your sheet. Just pick removes optimization from the equation entirely, and makes it clear that this is a roleplaying decision toward making a good, fun, game. Not a matter of "how do I get the most +s".

[Nagog]

The game was designed around standard array. Use it.

If you got someone who really wants it, point buy is ok. But rolling AS is a pointless anachronism.

I've had a party try to push me into rolling. I know the outcome will be human nature. So I said, "Take all 18s. I'll have all monsters at max HP. Fair enough?" They took standard array, and the game proceeded.

I think rolling for stats invites a level of chaos into the stats and adds more spice into the mix. Standard array as a whole just feels... weak. For example, I'd like to have something ~16 in a backup stat, like Cha on my Wizard, or Str on my Rogue. With 16 as the max starting (before racials), I feel like it's gonna be at least 8 levels before my stats are where I want them to be, if the campaign survives that long. Beyond that, I think the part that hurts most from Standard Array is Spell Save DCs. At early levels, anything that invokes a save for a spell will succeed unless that spell specifically hits a stat the enemy is weak in, and considering how few spells hit Int (the most common stat weakness at low levels), and how few that already limited pool is available at start (the only one that comes to mind is the UA Mind Sliver), early spellcasters suffer most from Standard Array. Rolling for stats has always been my go-to system, and if somebody rolls particularly badly, allowing them to reroll a stat or two to bring them up to par. Rolling for stats does allow for some characters to max out a stat right at the start with a maxed roll and a particular racial bonus, but when push comes to shove, it's none too difficult to compensate for such differences and it allows the player to get more into the meat of character building with feats and things.

In an attempt to diffuse any contention, I do see from your tag that you're from San Antonio. I grew up there, and miss it dearly (particularly this time of year), but I'm glad to be out of the Mountain Cedar. Has the allergy season been bad this year?

[JoeJ]

The game was designed around standard array. Use it.

RAW, rolling dice is the default way to generate ability scores; the standard array and point buy are both allowable variants, but neither is the expected method.

[Smoothjedi]

RAW, rolling dice is the default way to generate ability scores; the standard array and point buy are both allowable variants, but neither is the expected method.

You are partially correct. Rolling dice and the standard array are both default ways to generate ability scores. Point buy is the variant. In the same paragraph that details rolling stats, it ends with: "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."

After the example, it then goes into the variant for customizing scores via the point buy.

[Arcturus]

My group usually uses Point Buy / Standard Array, but we have occasionally tried rolling. We came up with the following 2 rules to add to 4d6 drop:

1. If you've rolled 5 of your abilities and none of them are 16+ then your 6th ability is 16 (no roll required).
2. No starting ability (after modifiers and vhuman feats) can be higher than 19.

This achieved 2 goals for us:
1. We would all start with at least one stat higher than the 15 allowed by point buy to shake up the usual ASI/feat progression and make the game feel a bit superheroic.
2. Everyone could start with a +4 in their key stat, ensuring that we would at least all be equally competent at our main job, giving some degree of balance.

We knew that for our other stats we might be wonky, but everyone was guaranteed to be competent and no one could start with a 20 so there was some room for improvement.

[Doug Lampert]

My group usually uses Point Buy / Standard Array, but we have occasionally tried rolling. We came up with the following 2 rules to add to 4d6 drop:

1. If you've rolled 5 of your abilities and none of them are 16+ then your 6th ability is 16 (no roll required).
2. No starting ability (after modifiers and vhuman feats) can be higher than 19.

This achieved 2 goals for us:
1. We would all start with at least one stat higher than the 15 allowed by point buy to shake up the usual ASI/feat progression and make the game feel a bit superheroic.
2. Everyone could start with a +4 in their key stat, ensuring that we would at least all be equally competent at our main job, giving some degree of balance.

We knew that for our other stats we might be wonky, but everyone was guaranteed to be competent and no one could start with a 20 so there was some room for improvement.

Great, I post my theory that custom rolling methods are done to get absurdly high values, and you post a method that only averages 0.4897 higher than by the book rolling, and that actually has a limit that by the book rolling doesn't.

I still think the original poster should at least consider the "everyone just writes down numbers" array. Player choice gives all the customization you could ask for, and allows for weaknesses if you want them.

[HappyDaze]

The game was designed around standard array. Use it.

If you got someone who really wants it, point buy is ok. But rolling AS is a pointless anachronism.

I've had a party try to push me into rolling. I know the outcome will be human nature. So I said, "Take all 18s. I'll have all monsters at max HP. Fair enough?" They took standard array, and the game proceeded.

I'll second using the standard array, but if someone really wants to use point-buy, remember that you can say "NO" to them. Point-buy is almost always used to min-max.

[JNAProductions]

I'll second using the standard array, but if someone really wants to use point-buy, remember that you can say "NO" to them. Point-buy is almost always used to min-max.

Yes, how dare players make powerful characters! The nerve of them! :P

[Smoothjedi]

I'll second using the standard array, but if someone really wants to use point-buy, remember that you can say "NO" to them. Point-buy is almost always used to min-max.


Yes, how dare players make powerful characters! The nerve of them! :P

To be honest I ran a campaign where, following my own advice, had everyone roll stats and the party used the best roll. An 18 and a 16 were both rolled, and above average for the rest. After tweaking the encounters a bit, I mainly just did exactly what you threatened and used max hit points. It actually worked out great; players got to roll big numbers and I was able to still wear them down effectively between rests.
Really it's the player's game; I'm just running it for them as fairly as I can. If they want slightly or even heavily OP characters, I don't think it's that hard to counterbalance it.

[HappyDaze]

Yes, how dare players make powerful characters! The nerve of them! :P

If they can't do it with the standard array, they don't know what they're doing.

[NOMster]

Here we go.

[Amechra]

Honestly? The standard array is pretty insufficient. The game is more-or-less designed around you having at least a +3 modifier for ability scores your character is "good at". Ideally, you want to start with a 16+ in your best ability scores - stat boosts are few and far between, after all.

As a result, games that use the standard array can effectively pick your race for you if you're playing certain classes - specifically Monks and Paladins, but you can also see it with Barbarians (Str for offense, Con for beef), Bards (Dex for a weapon and defense, Cha for spellcasting), and Rangers (Str/Dex for offense, Wis for spellcasting). What's worse, anyone who wants to multiclass into a class that requires an ability score they didn't focus on (or who wants to pick up a particular feat, like Ritual Caster) can effectively have the three highest values in their array chosen for them as well.

It also means that characters that share a class probably also have similar dump stats, and it's the primary reason why Hexblade and the like are considered to be so good.

So here's a dumb suggestion: try out a "heroic" game with an array like, I dunno, 19/18/17/16/11/10. It's not like the game would break or anything - arguably, you could just set everyone's ability scores to 20 at character creation and be just fine. It's just that they'll be slapping around monsters a bit earlier than normal.

[HappyDaze]

So here's a dumb suggestion: try out a "heroic" game with an array like, I dunno, 19/18/17/16/11/10. It's not like the game would break or anything - arguably, you could just set everyone's ability scores to 20 at character creation and be just fine. It's just that they'll be slapping around monsters a bit earlier than normal.

Or don't do that, stick with the standard array, and be just fine (except for wetting your elbows in the tears of the min-maxers as they pool on the table).

[Pex]

Or don't do that, stick with the standard array, and be just fine (except for wetting your elbows in the tears of the min-maxers as they pool on the table).

You say that like min-maxers are bad people. They aren't and min-maxers do just fine with the standard array, but it gets back to the original point. Once you choose your class your race is chosen for you or vice versa. The idea is to promote non-stereotypical race/class combos. Less halfling rogues and more halfling barbarians. Less tiefling warlocks and more tiefling clerics. The proposed array is an attempt to do that, though in my opinion is a tad too much and all 20s is boring. 17, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10 might work, maybe not. Play with the numbers along with the various racial modifiers to find what suits to taste, for those people where the standard array is not suitable of taste.

[Amechra]

Or don't do that, stick with the standard array, and be just fine (except for wetting your elbows in the tears of the min-maxers as they pool on the table).

I mean, fundamentally, you could give everyone 20s in every stat and it'd hardly change anything. Just toss some more goblins or whatever into the fights and you're fine.

My issue with the standard array is that sometimes I want to play something atypical (like a Half-Orc Monk), and I'm faced with the fact that I'm shooting myself in the foot to do so. And I'm being very literally when I say that - if my "I'm good at this!" bonus is a +4 and yours is a +6, you're 10% more likely to actually accomplish fun stuff like "be competent" or "do hero things".

Also, can you cut down on tossing insulting comments about "min-maxers"? It's kinda childish, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

[HappyDaze]

I mean, fundamentally, you could give everyone 20s in every stat and it'd hardly change anything. Just toss some more goblins or whatever into the fights and you're fine.

My issue with the standard array is that sometimes I want to play something atypical (like a Half-Orc Monk), and I'm faced with the fact that I'm shooting myself in the foot to do so. And I'm being very literally when I say that - if my "I'm good at this!" bonus is a +4 and yours is a +6, you're 10% more likely to actually accomplish fun stuff like "be competent" or "do hero things".

Also, can you cut down on tossing insulting comments about "min-maxers"? It's kinda childish, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I've played on sports teams with others that have been (easily) 10% better than me and some that have been 10% worse. We were all competent and all of us contributed to the success of the team. Don't view it as a competition to out-optimize the other players at the table and those differences will be far less important.

[Teaguethebean]

Or don't do that, stick with the standard array, and be just fine (except for wetting your elbows in the tears of the min-maxers as they pool on the table).

Are you okay? I can make a strong character with standard array but this sounds like you had a bad experience with a bad player who happened to be a min maxer. If I wanted to play a Barbarian I could use standard array 16 str 14 dex and con 12 wis 10 cha 8 int and Polearm master at lv1 not hard just 1 less hp per Level and 1 less on my con mod not a big deal tbh.

[HappyDaze]

Are you okay? I can make a strong character with standard array but this sounds like you had a bad experience with a bad player who happened to be a min maxer. If I wanted to play a Barbarian I could use standard array 16 str 14 dex and con 12 wis 10 cha 8 int and Polearm master at lv1 not hard just 1 less hp per Level and 1 less on my con mod not a big deal tbh.

See, the standard array works fine. No need to min-max it any further.

[Teaguethebean]

See, the standard array works fine. No need to min-max it any further.

Sure but is there a reason you hate min maxers so much because there is nothing wrong with wanting a strong character is there?

[Pex]

See, the standard array works fine. No need to min-max it any further.

It's doable or else it wouldn't exist, but when figuratively speaking almost every halfling is a rogue, every hill dwarf a cleric, every tiefling a warlock, every half-elf a bard, every wood elf a druid, perhaps it's the standard array/point buy that causes the repetition. For those who want more variety something else is needed. That's where dice rolling or a more lenient array comes in.

[Smoothjedi]

It's doable or else it wouldn't exist, but when figuratively speaking almost every halfling is a rogue, every hill dwarf a cleric, every tiefling a warlock, every half-elf a bard, every wood elf a druid, perhaps it's the standard array/point buy that causes the repetition. For those who want more variety something else is needed. That's where dice rolling or a more lenient array comes in.

Perhaps what is needed is a decoupling of bonus stats from races. Keep the standard array, but give players 3 stat points to put wherever they desire and remove them from all races. I think this would go a long way towards diversifying race choices for classes, but then again everyone may just make a Yuan-ti for spell resistance.

[HappyDaze]

It's doable or else it wouldn't exist, but when figuratively speaking almost every halfling is a rogue, every hill dwarf a cleric, every tiefling a warlock, every half-elf a bard, every wood elf a druid, perhaps it's the standard array/point buy that causes the repetition. For those who want more variety something else is needed. That's where dice rolling or a more lenient array comes in.

You already have plenty of variety--if your players are not so concerned with min-maxing that they only pick the "best" race for each class. Even if they do, a lightfoot halfling makes for a fine Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock in addition to Rogue. With stout halflings, Fighter and Ranger can work out just fine too. The other races are the same--every option is open, even if only a few whet the appetites of the optimizers. Even though it might tend to stereotype races into certain areas, I don't see this as a bad thing--it makes the exceptions even more exceptional.

[Pex]

Perhaps what is needed is a decoupling of bonus stats from races. Keep the standard array, but give players 3 stat points to put wherever they desire and remove them from all races. I think this would go a long way towards diversifying race choices for classes, but then again everyone may just make a Yuan-ti for spell resistance.

That works. Others have proposed in the past to remove all ability score modifiers and give everyone +2 and a +1 to put anywhere. Variant Human would be used.


You already have plenty of variety--if your players are not so concerned with min-maxing that they only pick the "best" race for each class. Even if they do, a lightfoot halfling makes for a fine Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Warlock in addition to Rogue. With stout halflings, Fighter and Ranger can work out just fine too. The other races are the same--every option is open, even if only a few whet the appetites of the optimizers. Even though it might tend to stereotype races into certain areas, I don't see this as a bad thing--it makes the exceptions even more exceptional.

It's not as simple as that. The math of the game matters. At 1st level one player having a 14 or 15 for +2 while another a 16 at +3 won't matter much, but the difference is significant as the levels progress because of ASI/Feats and monster proficiency increasing along with the BBEGS and Lieutenants of the combat have high scores in their prime. At 4th level you can have your 15 becomes a 16, but the player who went with the stereotype has 16 and a feat or 18. Maybe you go 15 and a feat instead, but the other player is still 16 and a feat or 18. The +1 difference between 15 and 16 matters more because at 5th level proficiency increases. The 18 means a +2 difference. You will see the difference in game play.

[Doug Lampert]

It's doable or else it wouldn't exist, but when figuratively speaking almost every halfling is a rogue, every hill dwarf a cleric, every tiefling a warlock, every half-elf a bard, every wood elf a druid, perhaps it's the standard array/point buy that causes the repetition. For those who want more variety something else is needed. That's where dice rolling or a more lenient array comes in.

I don't see this at all. With any array where your array forces a meaningful choice and the basic system 5th ed system, it will still be true that some race and class combinations are 5% better than others. Doesn't matter how generous the array is until you hit one that allows you to start with a 20 in an off-stat.

If the array were 17, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, then you'd still have the same incentive to make every halfling a rogue as you do under the BtB system. A 5% change is a 5% change. One more ASI needed for abilities is still one more ASI needed for abilities.

[Smoothjedi]

It's not as simple as that. The math of the game matters. At 1st level one player having a 14 or 15 for +2 while another a 16 at +3 won't matter much, but the difference is significant as the levels progress because of ASI/Feats and monster proficiency increasing along with the BBEGS and Lieutenants of the combat have high scores in their prime. At 4th level you can have your 15 becomes a 16, but the player who went with the stereotype has 16 and a feat or 18. Maybe you go 15 and a feat instead, but the other player is still 16 and a feat or 18. The +1 difference between 15 and 16 matters more because at 5th level proficiency increases. The 18 means a +2 difference. You will see the difference in game play.


I don't see this at all. With any array where your array forces a meaningful choice and the basic system 5th ed system, it will still be true that some race and class combinations are 5% better than others. Doesn't matter how generous the array is until you hit one that allows you to start with a 20 in an off-stat.

If the array were 17, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, then you'd still have the same incentive to make every halfling a rogue as you do under the BtB system. A 5% change is a 5% change. One more ASI needed for abilities is still one more ASI needed for abilities.

As suggested earlier, yeah it may not feel so bad, on average, if you character is 5-10% behind on effectiveness. However, the math can play out poorly in highly visible and clutch moments. Having played a character before that had a 2 point modifier deficit in my primary stat compared to others in the party often played out this way. Several fights where resources were depleted, my turn came up with a chance to finish the battle just before the enemy's turn. I roll; miss by one. While frantically adding up all my modifiers again to confirm, party members are asking, "Are you sure? I have +x; how did you miss? OH, you only have +(x-2)? … bummer."
Yes there can be a lot of flavor in creating a forest gnome warlock that was banished for dabbling in powers he shouldn't have been. However, not keeping up with everyone else who stuck to an optimized race for their class is going to wear on anyone excited to contribute in an effective way. Are your friends going to kick you out of the group? Probably not. Can you still have fun with your character? Of course! Still though, having a feeling of not being able to pull your weight, especially if your gnome warlock is the only arcane caster in the group, can frustrate even the best of us eventually.

[NOMster]

standard array sucks and takes all the randomness out of character creation that rolling brings in.

[Teaguethebean]

It's not as simple as that. The math of the game matters. At 1st level one player having a 14 or 15 for +2 while another a 16 at +3 won't matter much, but the difference is significant as the levels progress because of ASI/Feats and monster proficiency increasing along with the BBEGS and Lieutenants of the combat have high scores in their prime. At 4th level you can have your 15 becomes a 16, but the player who went with the stereotype has 16 and a feat or 18. Maybe you go 15 and a feat instead, but the other player is still 16 and a feat or 18. The +1 difference between 15 and 16 matters more because at 5th level proficiency increases. The 18 means a +2 difference. You will see the difference in game play.

I disagree with your every halfling is a rogue every blank is a blank statement as it simply isn't true but I will agree that not having a +3 in your main stat hurts the feel of a character even more than the mechanical power. If my teifling rogue only has a +4 to Theives tools or my half orc druid a +4 to animal handling then my character hardly can do the thing I want thematically. My druid is hardly better if not worse than the wood elf fighter who decided to have the proficiency through being a folk hero. It just leaves you feeling kinda bland.

[Sigreid]

I like straight rolls, but if discrepancy disrupts your table you could settle on a maximum total bonus and if someone rolls better than that they have to reduce attributes in 2 point increments until they meet the limit. If I were going to do this, I'd allow them to pass those two attribute points, in that specific attribute to a player who does not meet your cap. So if I had +7 total and the limit is +6 I could drop my str from 14 to 12 and give those two points to another player to raise their strength if their total was +5 or less.

[opaopajr]

Random Point Buy!

The two challenging calculations is ahen you roll two to three 8s or 1s in a row. But basically it means you gotta skip certain values as you run low on points or remaining abilities. :smallsmile:

So 1d8-1 and you roll 8, 8, 8, gives you a value of 7, 7, 7. Those are added to base 8, as per Point Buy, giving you 15, 15, 15. Those 7, 7, 7 then convert into point buy points of 9, 9, 9. That equals 27 total, so your point buy pool of points is spent.

Naturally the reverse is true! :smallsmile: Rolling 1, 1, 1 gives you 0, 0, 0. This adds to base 8, meaning first three abilities are 8, 8, 8. You still have 27 points to spend; your next three ability scores have to be 15, 15, 15 so as to spend 9, 9, 9.

What may seem hard at first is rolling 0, 0... what can come next? :smallsmile: But it is not as hard as you would think! You know you have 27 points left, you know certain values cannot be used. Basically spending 9 to get +7 ability, and 7 to get +6, is going to cause a challenge, because buying up to 14 and 15 costs an additional point each.

So look at the point buy chart and notice you can only add values 1 thru 5, 7, and 9. So 27 points spent on 4 ability values left means certain rolls CANNOT be used, namely rolls that equal 1 or 3. So you can roll a 1, getting a value of 0, and continue onto 15, 15, 15. And you can roll a 3, getting a value of 2, and can continue onto some mix of 15, 15, 14. But rolls of 2 and 4 are not usable because their values of 1 & 3 end up not spending enough points (you cannot construct 26 and 24 with only three integers of 1,2,3,4,5,7,9).

Ta-dah! :smallcool:

[Witty Username]

It's doable or else it wouldn't exist, but when figuratively speaking almost every halfling is a rogue, every hill dwarf a cleric, every tiefling a warlock, every half-elf a bard, every wood elf a druid, perhaps it's the standard array/point buy that causes the repetition. For those who want more variety something else is needed. That's where dice rolling or a more lenient array comes in.

I tend to agree, I prefer rolling because shakes up the expectations a little bit, and make race choices more interesting since they can patch low rolls or be facilitated by high rolls.
The difference between optimal race selection in standard array and the difference in rolled stat variations tend to be about the same, from my experience anyway.

[Pex]

I disagree with your every halfling is a rogue every blank is a blank statement as it simply isn't true but I will agree that not having a +3 in your main stat hurts the feel of a character even more than the mechanical power. If my teifling rogue only has a +4 to Theives tools or my half orc druid a +4 to animal handling then my character hardly can do the thing I want thematically. My druid is hardly better if not worse than the wood elf fighter who decided to have the proficiency through being a folk hero. It just leaves you feeling kinda bland.

I wrote "figuratively" on purpose because I have seen the non-stereotype. I've played with the halfling warlock and half-orc druid. I know it's not "literally" everyone everywhere. Players have free will. However, I've witnessed the effect of lowered prime scores. They're missing on attacks, do less damage, and monsters make their saving throws more often. At 4th level you can do fine with 16 and a feat getting the 18 at 8th level. The feat makes up for the numbers difference. You need the 18 at 8th level. It's a 5E thing, not specifically this thread topic.

You can get the 18 at 8th level with a non-stereotype race class combo. I'm not saying non-stereotypes are a horrible unplayable mess, but the journey getting there is a harder game. You are handicapping yourself while the stereotypes are +1 ahead from level 1 and from level four are +2 or +1 and a feat ahead. It is technically true if, for example, you give everyone a free 18 at 1st level the non-stereotype is still behind when the stereotype places the 18 where he gets a +2 racial modifier for a 20. That's not going away unless you get rid of the static racial modifiers and give everyone floaters. However, the game math forgives the difference because an 18 is that effective. It's not about the stereotype succeeding more but you failing less than you would have. If instead you give everyone a free 16, you are likely to still see a lot of stereotypes to get the 18, but since we know by original Point Buy the math of the game is fine starting with a 16 in your prime at 1st level you still have room to explore the non-stereotype. 18 or 16 and a feat at 4th level is still as good as it was before, but now you can do with a non-stereotype which is what is being requested by using a better array than standard. What the final numbers are for that better array isn't the point, just that it exists.

[Teaguethebean]

I wrote "figuratively" on purpose because I have seen the non-stereotype. I've played with the halfling warlock and half-orc druid. I know it's not "literally" everyone everywhere. Players have free will. However, I've witnessed the effect of lowered prime scores. They're missing on attacks, do less damage, and monsters make their saving throws more often. At 4th level you can do fine with 16 and a feat getting the 18 at 8th level. The feat makes up for the numbers difference. You need the 18 at 8th level. It's a 5E thing, not specifically this thread topic.

I disagree with how riggedly you feel you need that 18 because you really don't but I agree with standard array you often end up dissatisfied with a mere +2 I'm your characters main thing.

[Pex]

I disagree with how riggedly you feel you need that 18 because you really don't but I agree with standard array you often end up dissatisfied with a mere +2 I'm your characters main thing.

Lieutenants and BBEG monsters are getting 18s and 20s in their prime and increasing proficiency, affecting their special attack DC and saving throws. Special monsters have more than 20 in their prime. Some monsters get advantage to their saving throws. You need to keep up. A 16 in your prime isn't enough anymore. The tough monsters have a higher proficiency than you will, so along with their prime score it's no longer only a +1 difference. Against the mooks, sure, you'll still do fine. Against the BBEG of the fight you fail more. I see it playing the game.

[HappyDaze]

Lieutenants and BBEG monsters are getting 18s and 20s in their prime and increasing proficiency, affecting their special attack DC and saving throws. Special monsters have more than 20 in their prime. Some monsters get advantage to their saving throws. You need to keep up. A 16 in your prime isn't enough anymore. The tough monsters have a higher proficiency than you will, so along with their prime score it's no longer only a +1 difference. Against the mooks, sure, you'll still do fine. Against the BBEG of the fight you fail more. I see it playing the game.

PCs are not monsters and are not made with the same rules or limits. You do not need to try and "keep up" with them. A typical Bandit Captain has better ability scores (and way more hit points!) than most 1-4th level PCs, but that's not all that important since they lack much of the flexibility and options that make PCs interesting to play.

[Pex]

PCs are not monsters and are not made with the same rules or limits. You do not need to try and "keep up" with them. A typical Bandit Captain has better ability scores (and way more hit points!) than most 1-4th level PCs, but that's not all that important since they lack much of the flexibility and options that make PCs interesting to play.

We're not talking about playing the monsters but defeating them in combat. The variety or lack there of a monster can do is irrelevant to the point. It's the math behind it - the monster's DC for whatever its special ability is that has one and its saving throw against the PC's abilities. You also need to be able to hit the monster's AC. At level 14 with 20 in your prime attack and no magic weapon you're still missing AC 20 45% of the time. If you still only have a 16 you're missing on more than half your attacks. Obviously class features help, but that's true regardless of ability score. You're still missing a lot more than those who have the 20 or even an 18. In my opinion it starts to become significantly noticeable at level 8. Maybe beforehand but you can't do anything about it anyway, so level 8 is the benchmark. A fighter can at 6, but call it personal anecdote I know of no fighter player whose race choice did not pump strength or dexterity. Still, fighter gets that extra bump so fighter/non ST or DX bump race combo can work with standard array by my criteria.

[Witty Username]

Martials have it worse than casters I think, the disparity between scores comes up really whenever atk rolls or AC come up, which for martials is all the time. I would say that the difference is small(or rather a manageable size), but it can cause feel bads in the standard array.

[Amechra]

Let's say that we're both in a fight, and over the course of that fight, we each make five attacks. Due to your bonuses, you have a 60% chance of success, and I have a 50% chance. There is effectively a 10% chance with each attack that you get a "bonus" hit (because you hit when I wouldn't be able to).

Doesn't sound like that much of a difference, right? There's roughly a 40% chance of that coming up at least once during that fight. That's nothing to sneeze at - I'm not pulling my weight as well as you are.

[HappyDaze]

Let's say that we're both in a fight, and over the course of that fight, we each make five attacks. Due to your bonuses, you have a 60% chance of success, and I have a 50% chance. There is effectively a 10% chance with each attack that you get a "bonus" hit (because you hit when I wouldn't be able to).

Doesn't sound like that much of a difference, right? There's roughly a 40% chance of that coming up at least once during that fight. That's nothing to sneeze at - I'm not pulling my weight as well as you are.

You don't really have a weight to pull. It's not a competition. How much more are you accomplishing simply by being there than by having a gap in the party? That's what you should consider because there is no obligation that every character be min-maxed for total optimization outside of your headspace.

[Pex]

That's 40% chance you miss your opponent you would have hit had you +1 more. That's 40% chance the opponent is not dropped for the round it would have been had you +1 more, so you must suffer one more round of Actions from the opponent.

[Amechra]

You don't really have a weight to pull. It's not a competition. How much more are you accomplishing simply by being there than by having a gap in the party? That's what you should consider because there is no obligation that every character be min-maxed for total optimization outside of your headspace.

It's not a competition, sure... but I don't know why you're bringing that up? My personal concern is that it's a collaborative experience, and that my choices actively make things easier or harder for everyone else.

[Witty Username]

There is some milage there. For example, other stats, stats that are not primary or secondary tend to not matter most of the time but can create roleplay opportunities. Also, looking for solutions to stat issues in game can make for plot hooks, your str 12 fighter will start salivating if they think they can get a belt of giant strength. But this also touches on why I like rolled stats. Primary stats tend to not vary much because the best of 6 rolls is going there, 14+ is pretty reliable, while the more you drift the more variable things get(not everyone wants to roleplay an int 8 paladin all the time, dispite it being optimal, rolled you can get some variety).

[greenstone]

If you want balanced, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and use points buy.

QFT.

Dice rolls, by their very nature, produce unbalanced results. Player A rolls well; player B does not.

If you want a system where player B is not penalised for bad dice rolls, then don't use dice rolls.

[Pex]

QFT.

Dice rolls, by their very nature, produce unbalanced results. Player A rolls well; player B does not.

If you want a system where player B is not penalised for bad dice rolls, then don't use dice rolls.

Or let player B reroll acknowledging the luck factor but not resenting it. Player A still has his awesome array so loses nothing.

[Witty Username]

Or let player B reroll acknowledging the luck factor but not resenting it. Player A still has his awesome array so loses nothing.

This.


I would also support providing in game solutions. Access to stat boosting items or other opportunities to bolster the power of the character, like say the occasional training montage. This will be more work for the DM, tailoring for the player/character and making sure it actually fixes the inbalance, but it could be more interesting if done well.