Story Driven Stats instead of Rolling for them...?

[Drache64]

So instead of rolling for stats I thought about working with the DM to tell him your character concept and work together to stat the character.

Doing this I think makes classes that require many stats like Monk to be more viable for play and RP. Working with the DM on setting your stats to appropriate levels for the character are a great way to possibly have multiple 15's without having 3 8's from point buy or something like a player rolling for stats a getting multiple 18's and putting them in stats that really have nothing to do with their character simply because they want a higher CON.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this should replace rolling for stats in all games always, I just think this could be a fun thing to do in some campaigns at session 0. Rolling for stats or using point buy are still somethings I'd enjoy doing in various campaigns.

What do you guys think? Any tweaks or edits to these ideas?

[KillingTime]

Use the array or roll.
Trying to wrangle high stats from the DM is just crying out for bad feeling at the table from hard done by players.
Why should they be penalised for taking a simple SAD character?

[JNAProductions]

Ability Scores: Pick six numbers. These are your pre-racial stats. No number may be higher than 18 or less than 3. You may modify them freely up until the game starts, and may pick duplicate numbers.



This is what I do.

[Lunali]

One of the most interesting system for determining stats that I've seen has been for the players to just decide their stats. The problem is that it takes a rather unusual group to use, otherwise you end up with 4 characters with average stats over 18.

[Necrosnoop110]

I think it could work with a very mature group. But it is not my cup of tea. I want my D&D to be anchored by a sensible rule-set. Not crushed by an ironclad inflexible rule-set but a rule-set none-the-less. Complete pick-and-choose becomes too much magic-tea party for me. I've always favored point-buy or array. Rolling or random always seems to screw-over somebody and over-favor somebody else, in the end.


Thinking out-loud:
What about having your PCs assign desired "power" levels of Strong, Medium, Weak to each of the six stats and you the DM assign the stats.

PC: I'm playing a rogue, and I would like these for stats: S:Medium D:(Most desired)Strong C: Medium I: Medium W: (dump stat)Weak C: Strong

DM: here you go: S:13, D:16, C:14, I:11, W:9, C:15

[Amechra]

I'm personally a big fan of the standard array. But if you want to skip over the hassle of having to pick the "right" race for whatever you're playing, you could do the following:


When creating your character, choose one of the following arrays:

16/16/13/12/10/8
17/14/14/12/10/8

Those are your starting ability scores. You gain no further ability score increases from your race.

Yes, you have to do a little bit of fiddling with classes, and you probably shouldn't let VHumans take half-feats with this array (since they'd essentially be sneakily cheating in +1 to an ability score), but eh. It should work.

[Drache64]

Use the array or roll.
Trying to wrangle high stats from the DM is just crying out for bad feeling at the table from hard done by players.
Why should they be penalised for taking a simple SAD character?

Sounds like you don't really trust your DM, I am currently doing this with a smaller campaign we are running, I talked to all my players, asked them about their character concepts and then made sure they had the right stats to do what they wanted without being broken. Have had zero issues or complaints, but this table is more focused on having a good time and telling fun stores rather than crying for stat buffs.


This is what I do.


One of the most interesting system for determining stats that I've seen has been for the players to just decide their stats. The problem is that it takes a rather unusual group to use, otherwise you end up with 4 characters with average stats over 18.

Ha, that is a bit of a half step to this, in fact I think my idea might be the completed thought of that idea. Instead of having everyone pick their stats, working with the DM at a session 0 is the best way to get balance.


I think it could work with a very mature group. But it is not my cup of tea. I want my D&D to be anchored by a sensible rule-set. Not crushed by an ironclad inflexible rule-set but a rule-set none-the-less. Complete pick-and-choose becomes too much magic-tea party for me. I've always favored point-buy or array. Rolling or random always seems to screw-over somebody and over-favor somebody else, in the end.


Thinking out-loud:
What about having your PCs assign desired "power" levels of Strong, Medium, Weak to each of the six stats and you the DM assign the stats.

PC: I'm playing a rogue, and I would like these for stats: S:Medium D:(Most desired)Strong C: Medium I: Medium W: (dump stat)Weak C: Strong

DM: here you go: S:13, D:16, C:14, I:11, W:9, C:15

This definitely required mature players and a group that is established and trusts each other. I was asked to play on a stream that was focused heavily on telling a story and I thought it was weird to come up with a completely vetted character and arc only to randomly roll for stats (I got great stats anyways, but just seemed odd).


I'm personally a big fan of the standard array. But if you want to skip over the hassle of having to pick the "right" race for whatever you're playing, you could do the following:

Yes, you have to do a little bit of fiddling with classes, and you probably shouldn't let VHumans take half-feats with this array (since they'd essentially be sneakily cheating in +1 to an ability score), but eh. It should work.

I am a huge fan of point buy and rolling, this is an alternative. One person eating cake does not mean nobody can have ice cream.

[ZealousObject]

Why not just use point-buy, and if you don't get exactly what you want talk to your GM about messing with the numbers.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I occasionally let people drop their 3rd highest stat and replace it with a 16-18, as long as they put it in a dump stat. And when I say dump stat, I usually mean Int or Cha, plus a promise not to multiclass in a way that means it matters. I don't want a guy to say "oh, yeah, Cha is a dump stat for me", then take Hexblade the next level, you know? But I'm also interested to have barbarian pseudo-faces, druids who compete in village strongman contests, wizards who are fonts of wisdom as well as lore, and bards* who are just as intelligent as they are charismatic.

In third edition, I gave everyone a free base skill point and a bonus class skill, as long as it wasn't Diplomacy, Iajutsu Focus, Animal Handling or one of the other stupid options. The goal was to get players to say things like "can I make a Profession (engineer) roll to do x?". Just an additional resource to use in hopefully-unexpected ways.

*Lore bards should be Int-based, damnit.

[Drache64]

Why not just use point-buy, and if you don't get exactly what you want talk to your GM about messing with the numbers.

I mean this sounds a bit like someone asking Edison why doesn't he just light a torch.

The point of the post is to discuss something new and interesting. If you aren't interested in discussing something interesting then youre fine to go on as usual.

Your comment sounds like it's addressing a player who merely wants higher stats, whereas I'm approaching this from a narrative mechanical standpoint. Certain classes and certain character builds would benefit from this kind of stat assignment.

Does that answer your question or did I ramble too much?

[Pex]

This is what Pathfinder 2E does. You can adopt or adapt the system.

[Drache64]

This is what Pathfinder 2E does. You can adopt or adapt the system.

I do not play or own PF2E, is there a way to look at their system without buying an expensive book just to reformat an idea I already came up with?

[ZealousObject]

The point of the post is to discuss something new and interesting. If you aren't interested in discussing something interesting then youre fine to go on as usual.

Your comment sounds like it's addressing a player who merely wants higher stats, whereas I'm approaching this from a narrative mechanical standpoint. Certain classes and certain character builds would benefit from this kind of stat assignment.

We both do very similar things, try and create a stat line best to fit the character. All I'm saying is this seems a little convoluted trying to gauge a character's stat line based solely off of individual's interpretation of the character.

My suggestion is to create a base stat line through the point buy system that you're fine with, but then ask and plead your case to the GM why a modification to the array would be more appropriate for the character.

[SirGraystone]

How about using the point buy system but adding possibility to get more then just 27 points to start with by choosing hindrance. Like having to give 10% of your treasure to your church/monastary/liege lord is worth an extra point, giving 50% get you 2 points, or living in poverty and giving 90% of your loots for 3 bonus points.Having a bounty on your head, a demon hunting your family, you can be creative with the agreement of your DM. Maybe put a limit of max +5 bonus points.

[tomjon]

I have played in a game with no character sheet. You just told the dm what you would try to do. The more you tried the better you got at it. Made for great RP and less about numbers on a character sheet.

So I had a character that used two weapons had a bit of unarmed combat with a few thief abilities and multiple attacks per round. What was my character Class or ability scores, got me but it was a Lot of fun to play. I think we all started off as a zero level with so so stats. As we developed are characters with the story the better some ability scores and skills got.

Yep it will be a hard sell to power gamers but hopefully an experience group can overcome not having a filled out character sheet.

It dose take a lot of work for a dm but if you want a game that’s more story and less table top war game it’s a great way. As a side note characters don’t have to follow the rules. You didn’t give you character an earth shattering power the dm did.

[NaughtyTiger]

I don't understand a couple of things...

In the original post, you are a player working with the DM, but further down you say you are the DM and you already do this for your players. Are you asking for advice or giving it?


What is the goal of this method?
Are you trying to produce a party that would have higher starting power than point-buy?
Are you trying to max your high abilities without any penalties on low ones?

What if working with the DM, he decides you should have str 16, dex 14, con 12, wis 12, int 12, cha 12 after race mods ... would you be satisfied?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

What if working with the DM, he decides you should have str 16, dex 14, con 12, con 12, con 12, con 12 after race mods ... would you be satisfied?

Do all those +1 Con modifiers stack?

[NaughtyTiger]

Do all those +1 Con modifiers stack?

ha.... dumb, unobservant, rude, but built like a tank... fixing it now...

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

ha.... dumb, unobservant, rude, but built like a tank... fixing it now...

I'm just imagining applying them sequentially, you know?

"Does a 12 save?" No. "What about a 13?" No. "What about a 14?" Still no. "What about a 15?" Dude, no. "What about a 16?" No, and where are you getting these numbers? "What about a 17?" Ok, jeez, fine, yes, a 17 saves.

[Amnestic]

I mean this sounds a bit like someone asking Edison why doesn't he just light a torch.

The point of the post is to discuss something new and interesting. If you aren't interested in discussing something interesting then youre fine to go on as usual.

Your comment sounds like it's addressing a player who merely wants higher stats, whereas I'm approaching this from a narrative mechanical standpoint. Certain classes and certain character builds would benefit from this kind of stat assignment.

Does that answer your question or did I ramble too much?

I'm afraid I'm not really understanding. What character concept can't you build with point buy, either the standard 27 or perhaps upped to 30, 35 or 40 points - as examples - if you're aiming for a higher power level group?

[Miele]

We roll dice because that's what we did for 3 decades, but in the name of having balanced characters, we do it as follows: 6 players, each one rolls 4d6 and discard the worst result.

Each player rolls only once.

The table has 6 values, hopefully decent enough and everyone can arrange them as they wish, according to race and class selection.

Sometimes we generate a second set of rolls and we pick which set is more interesting, but no matter what, all players start with the same values.

[Bosh]

Could work in the right group. For example a non-EK fighter with sky high int could be a fun concept but would be horrible self-sabotage with point buy or an array.

Hell a non-EK fighter with 16 Str and 18 Int is probably weaker than a fighter with 18 Str and 8 Int. Using DM best judgememt could make these sort of PCs work where an array or point buy doesn't help.

Or just roll down the line, preferably AFTER choosing your race. Get some interesting PCs that way.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

One potential way to do this would be to have everyone start with a slightly below-average array, and include ASIs or half-ASIs as story rewards for campaign progress or for particular accomplishments by players. That way, you're not having players write elaborate backstory to justify above-average stats; you're rewarding players for their actions during play. Like inspiration, but permanent.

Your party starts with a 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7 array, for example. By the time the party has successfully fended off the bandit raid on the trading post, identified the suddenly-pecunious constable who unlocked the gate, tracked the bandits to their camp and dispersed them, the fighter has gained +1 Cha for rallying the guards and leading their counter-charge; the wizard +1 Wis for devising a plan to uncover the traitor and apprehend him; the cleric +1 Dex for risking entering the burning inn to ensure it was evacuated; the rogue +1 Str for ...something. And now the party is level 2-and-a-bit, and they've mostly gotten bumps to dump or tertiary stats, but their stats have changed as a result of what they've done. And by the time they're level 4, they've decoded the letter to the bandit leader, recognized that the neighboring duchy is encouraging unrest, brought the problem to the Duc, and been tasked with guarding an envoy to the mysterious wild elves of Hallowmere, and they've all gotten another +1 to something. And by the time they're tier 3, with the normal ASIs and story rewards, they're a bit behind WBL but a bit ahead of the attribute curve, and it balances itself out, mostly.

Heck, you could even do an 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 array, and be extremely aggressive with +1 rewards in the first two to three levels. Not every group would be OK with this, but it might be interesting. You'd have to rebalance everything in those first few levels, though.

[Anymage]

What do you consider "pretty smart"? 14? 16? 18? 20?

A little fudging around the edges of point buy/standard array is one thing. Entirely freeform stats sound like they'd wind up quickly causing inflation, just because there's no real clear sign just what a given score would reflect in the real world. I just worry that I'd start to see things like thinking that 18 is required to be "pretty good" at a given stat, when 16 is considered low level heroic for a character's prime stat.

[NaughtyTiger]

One potential way to do this would be to have everyone start with a slightly below-average array, and include ASIs or half-ASIs as story rewards for campaign progress or for particular accomplishments by players. That way, you're not having players write elaborate backstory to justify above-average stats; you're rewarding players for their actions during play. Like inspiration, but permanent.

Your party starts with a 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 7 array, for example. By the time the party has successfully fended off the bandit raid on the trading post, identified the suddenly-pecunious constable who unlocked the gate, tracked the bandits to their camp and dispersed them, the fighter has gained +1 Cha for rallying the guards and leading their counter-charge; the wizard +1 Wis for devising a plan to uncover the traitor and apprehend him; the cleric +1 Dex for risking entering the burning inn to ensure it was evacuated; the rogue +1 Str for ...something. And now the party is level 2-and-a-bit, and they've mostly gotten bumps to dump or tertiary stats, but their stats have changed as a result of what they've done. And by the time they're level 4, they've decoded the letter to the bandit leader, recognized that the neighboring duchy is encouraging unrest, brought the problem to the Duc, and been tasked with guarding an envoy to the mysterious wild elves of Hallowmere, and they've all gotten another +1 to something. And by the time they're tier 3, with the normal ASIs and story rewards, they're a bit behind WBL but a bit ahead of the attribute curve, and it balances itself out, mostly.

Heck, you could even do an 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 array, and be extremely aggressive with +1 rewards in the first two to three levels. Not every group would be OK with this, but it might be interesting. You'd have to rebalance everything in those first few levels, though.

i like this alot. roleplay informs the character growth.

[Drache64]

I don't understand a couple of things...

In the original post, you are a player working with the DM, but further down you say you are the DM and you already do this for your players. Are you asking for advice or giving it?


Certainly, allow me to clarify. I said "I thought about working with the DM to tell him your character concept and work together to stat the character." This was meaning the method involves working with the DM to build your character. I am the DM but I am proposing the method to a group that I assume is largely players as most D&D tables are multiple players to 1 DM, was just a wording choice.

I am both a DM and a Player across 2 different campaigns. I play in 1, and DM the other 2. I am using this method in my latest campaign.



What is the goal of this method?
Are you trying to produce a party that would have higher starting power than point-buy?
Are you trying to max your high abilities without any penalties on low ones?

My session zero is not usually a typical session zero, it is a few meetings, calls and texts about starting up a new campaign, working with a chracter on what they want to play, what their story is, how to tie them into the main plot and to make sure they have significant space for progression. I want to know their aspirations for their character and what they would like to see their character do at the table.

The player tells me a rough concept usually ("I want to play a half-orc bounty hunter") I then probe further, who is this bounty hunter, what has he done, where is he going, what is his personal goal for the campaign. ("He was a soldier who returned from the war to find out his family was murdered and now he exacts justice on all evil does... and collects some coin while at it") Okay this character is fleshing out now, he doesn't know it but another member of the group is looking for her lost brother, there is potential to tie them together, interesting maybe I could introduce some memory loss, I float past the player a cryptic ask "would you consider that your character had his memory modified so that a member of his family may still be alive and he doesn't know it?" the player is excited at this idea. What class fit's best for Bounty hunter, ranger perhaps? Does he have any injuries from the war? Yes? Okay Here is what I propose:

STR: 13 (You were strong but have lost your edge, perhaps a little bit of conditioning will get you back up?)
DEX: 18 (They were a sharp shooter in the war)
CON: 12 (As a military man you have a decent health, but you are getting along in age)
INT: 8 (You have suffered a bit of memory loss from being brain washed and focused only on war, you are not well learned and have forgotten a bit of history and religion etc).
WIS: 16 (While not very smart, you know how to track, you are perceptive from your time in battle and traveling through ambushes, and you have sharp eyes from being a sharp shooter.)
CHA: 8 (You are salty, scarred, and blunt. You don't persuade your bounties to come with you, you tie them up and haul them out, you have a gruff exterior).

This is all after racial mods.

The player thinks about it, it makes sense but he was hoping for higher stats. He counters that as a sharp shooter he should have 18 in DEX and WIS because he was so good at shooting. and he doesn't want any negatives for he asks for 10 in INT and CHA.

We talk about it and agree that two 18's is too high, but two stats at 8 is a bit low and compromise to put WIS at 17, and CHA at 10.



What if working with the DM, he decides you should have str 16, dex 14, con 12, wis 12, int 12, cha 12 after race mods ... would you be satisfied?

This last comment is focused purely on the numbers. Would I be satisfied with str 16, dex 14, con 12, wis 12, int 12, cha 12 after race mods? It depends, does it fit my character? If I am playing an orc warlord who slaughtered a monastery and the last monk changed his heart and now the Orc wants to dedicate his life to self control and the way of the open palm, then no. Those stats are all wrong. The STR should be higher, the Dex might be fine, the Con should be a tad bit higher, the wis might be okay based on my character's time at the monastery and how long he's been a monk, but The charisma and the intelligence should probably be 6's.

You are only focused on the numbers and not focused at all on the story. This is fine in dungeon run campaigns but one's that focus more on narrative RP need stats that reflect the story you want to tell with your character.


What do you consider "pretty smart"? 14? 16? 18? 20?

A little fudging around the edges of point buy/standard array is one thing. Entirely freeform stats sound like they'd wind up quickly causing inflation, just because there's no real clear sign just what a given score would reflect in the real world. I just worry that I'd start to see things like thinking that 18 is required to be "pretty good" at a given stat, when 16 is considered low level heroic for a character's prime stat.

Pathfinder and I think 3.5 had a great depiction of what each score represents, personally I use these, but a DM is fine to tweak those however they want. 18 can be "pretty good" or "epic" at a stat and both are valid interpretations based on the DM.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/
((
Quote from the link:
Score/MOD/Example/description
— — Shrieker Immobile
0 –6 – Incapable of moving (but not unconscious)
1 –5 Gelatinous cube Barely mobile, probably significantly paralyzed
2-3 –4 Many oozes, living wall, sea urchin Incapable of moving without great effort
4–5 –3 Hungry fog Visible paralysis or physical difficulty
6–7 –2 Purple worm, ogre zombie Significant klutz or very slow to react
8–9 –1 Ogre, basilisk, fire giant, tendriculos Somewhat slow, occasionally trips over own feet
10–11 +0 Human, triton, boar, giant fire beetle Capable of usually catching a small tossed object, average human agility
12–13 +1 Bugbear, lammasu, hobgoblin Able to often hit large targets at a distance
14–15 +2 Displacer beast, hieracosphinx Can catch or dodge a medium-speed surprise projectile
16–17 +3 Blink dog, wraith, lion, octopus Able to often hit small targets at a distance
18–19 +4 Astral deva, ethereal filcher Light on feet, able to often hit small moving targets at a distance
20–21 +5 Arrowhawk, bone devil Graceful, able to flow from one action into another easily
22-23 +6 Kirin, dweomercat Very graceful, capable of dodging multiple thrown objects
24-25 +7 Cat lord, balor Moves like water, reacting to all situations with almost no effort
32–33 +11 Elder air elemental Moves like the wind, capable of reactions unseen by mortals, reaction-time is virtually instantaneous
))

Some campaigns I use point buy with my players because I wanted a more grounded campaign, other times I give them a higher stat array because I am going to be giving out magic items to BBEG or I want to dig deeper into the MM. Reading the comments I am thinking people are thinking I am saying the players decide the stats and not the DM...

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd rather just adjust what primary powers each of the classes use. That seems to be the real limiter here.

A 14 or a 20 really only seem all that different when compared to each other. Compare either to a 10, and both seem really high. Point is, you'll never make a 20 stat that's high enough, because the concept of the 20 is "something that's better than the best", and it doesn't carry that same weight once it becomes real.

It doesn't matter if your stats are 14, 16, or 20. They all just have a mental value of "more than normal", and there's not really a good scale as to how much "more" that is. At a certain point, it's just bloating your numbers, not for plot reasons, but for mechanical ones.

The only real differences between what defines your character are what stats they're allowed to have compared to the mechanics they can use. For example, you generally can't afford to have a Monk with high Charisma, since you already need high Dex and Wis.

So just allow Strength and Dexterity to be interchangable, and allow the mental stats to be interchangable, for the sake of class features/AC. I see that being a heck of a lot more fun for the story than just "pick your stats" vs. "pick your stats from these options".

[Amnestic]

The player thinks about it, it makes sense but he was hoping for higher stats.



Your comment sounds like it's addressing a player who merely wants higher stats, whereas I'm approaching this from a narrative mechanical standpoint. Certain classes and certain character builds would benefit from this kind of stat assignment.


So, that previous comment was entirely fair then, since your example case is the player using this 'narrative' to try to get two 18s at 1st level?

Again, I'm not clear on what builds point buy can't do in this example. Does a character having a 16 strength vs an 18 strength at 1st level really 'change their narrative'?

[NaughtyTiger]

Amnestic and MoG addressed this much clearer than I did, but I am stubborn.

Okay Here is what I propose:

[you listed stats]

The player thinks about it, it makes sense but he was hoping for higher stats. He counters that as a sharp shooter he should have 18 in DEX and WIS because he was so good at shooting. and he doesn't want any negatives for he asks for 10 in INT and CHA.

We talk about it and agree that two 18's is too high, but two stats at 8 is a bit low and compromise to put WIS at 17, and CHA at 10.

This last comment is focused purely on the numbers.

I am totally good with working with the DM to come up with stats, backstory, even spells.

But in your example, the player wanted better int/wis/cha for free. the player ends up with 13,18, 12, 8 17, 10.
the player's desire was focused purely on the numbers.
we know this because "he doesn't want any negatives" and "he was hoping for higher stats"
... not because you said was was smarter from his experience or learned to be intimidating from battle.

would the player still have the same roleplay if his stats were: 13, 16, 12, 10 15, 10?

you opened the post with "great way to possibly have multiple 15's without having 3 8's ".
This is also a focus on the numbers.
Why do you need 15s? why are 8's bad if roleplay is the focus?

[Drache64]

[[EDIT]]

Sorry deleted a rant. Let's just suffice to say you guys don't get the concept and move on :)

[Mellack]

The issue is that the way I see it, at least how you described the player's comments, was that the narrative was being changed to create the numbers they desired. Not the narrative creating the numbers. The player didn't want any negatives, so the narrative was created to give them those numbers.

[NaughtyTiger]

What do you guys think? Any tweaks or edits to these ideas?

Thank you for clarifying some of my questions. Based on your responses:
I think that as you laid it out, it is simply higher starting stats. This is common, and perfectly acceptable for a table that adopts it.

It is still unclear whether the DM would increase the challenge to counter the increased starting power or if the campaigns are intended to be easier (emphasize the heroic aspects).
It is also unclear if the DM would/should balance player stats with other players in the party. (provide a boost to less tactical players)

Given the defensive nature of your response, I gather that our pushback was unexpected.
I do think you are doing yourself a disservice by dismissing our feedback.

[Drache64]

The issue is that the way I see it, at least how you described the player's comments, was that the narrative was being changed to create the numbers they desired. Not the narrative creating the numbers. The player didn't want any negatives, so the narrative was created to give them those numbers.

Not really go back and read closer, that was not a real example, that was all made up by me for an example on the fly, I was exemplifying compromise. I threw you a bone and figured "sure, a player might argue for higher stats, why not" and showed what compromise looked like.

If you read that full paragraph on the character creation and saw how I narratively assigned all the stats based on the story of the character then I showed what it looks like for a player to naturally ask for higher stats and show how I kept most the stats the same with a tiny little 1 number bump and say

"Oh SEE!? you changed the number higher because this isn't about story at all!! It's all about the numbers!" Then not only do you disappoint me, but you break my heart.

[Mellack]

If a player comes to you with a character concept of wanting to basically play Buckaroo Bonzai, do they just get all 18 stats?

[Drache64]

My graceful response to you:


Certainly, allow me to clarify. I said "I thought about working with the DM to tell him your character concept and work together to stat the character." This was meaning the method involves working with the DM to build your character. I am the DM but I am proposing the method to a group that I assume is largely players as most D&D tables are multiple players to 1 DM, was just a wording choice.

I am both a DM and a Player across 2 different campaigns. I play in 1, and DM the other 2. I am using this method in my latest campaign.


My session zero is not usually a typical session zero, it is a few meetings, calls and texts about starting up a new campaign, working with a chracter on what they want to play, what their story is, how to tie them into the main plot and to make sure they have significant space for progression. I want to know their aspirations for their character and what they would like to see their character do at the table.

The player tells me a rough concept usually ("I want to play a half-orc bounty hunter") I then probe further, who is this bounty hunter, what has he done, where is he going, what is his personal goal for the campaign. ("He was a soldier who returned from the war to find out his family was murdered and now he exacts justice on all evil does... and collects some coin while at it") Okay this character is fleshing out now, he doesn't know it but another member of the group is looking for her lost brother, there is potential to tie them together, interesting maybe I could introduce some memory loss, I float past the player a cryptic ask "would you consider that your character had his memory modified so that a member of his family may still be alive and he doesn't know it?" the player is excited at this idea. What class fit's best for Bounty hunter, ranger perhaps? Does he have any injuries from the war? Yes? Okay Here is what I propose:

STR: 13 (You were strong but have lost your edge, perhaps a little bit of conditioning will get you back up?)
DEX: 18 (They were a sharp shooter in the war)
CON: 12 (As a military man you have a decent health, but you are getting along in age)
INT: 8 (You have suffered a bit of memory loss from being brain washed and focused only on war, you are not well learned and have forgotten a bit of history and religion etc).
WIS: 16 (While not very smart, you know how to track, you are perceptive from your time in battle and traveling through ambushes, and you have sharp eyes from being a sharp shooter.)
CHA: 8 (You are salty, scarred, and blunt. You don't persuade your bounties to come with you, you tie them up and haul them out, you have a gruff exterior).

This is all after racial mods.

The player thinks about it, it makes sense but he was hoping for higher stats. He counters that as a sharp shooter he should have 18 in DEX and WIS because he was so good at shooting. and he doesn't want any negatives for he asks for 10 in INT and CHA.

We talk about it and agree that two 18's is too high, but two stats at 8 is a bit low and compromise to put WIS at 17, and CHA at 10.



This last comment is focused purely on the numbers. Would I be satisfied with str 16, dex 14, con 12, wis 12, int 12, cha 12 after race mods? It depends, does it fit my character? If I am playing an orc warlord who slaughtered a monastery and the last monk changed his heart and now the Orc wants to dedicate his life to self control and the way of the open palm, then no. Those stats are all wrong. The STR should be higher, the Dex might be fine, the Con should be a tad bit higher, the wis might be okay based on my character's time at the monastery and how long he's been a monk, but The charisma and the intelligence should probably be 6's.

You are only focused on the numbers and not focused at all on the story. This is fine in dungeon run campaigns but one's that focus more on narrative RP need stats that reflect the story you want to tell with your character.



Pathfinder and I think 3.5 had a great depiction of what each score represents, personally I use these, but a DM is fine to tweak those however they want. 18 can be "pretty good" or "epic" at a stat and both are valid interpretations based on the DM.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/
((
Quote from the link:
Score/MOD/Example/description
— — Shrieker Immobile
0 –6 – Incapable of moving (but not unconscious)
1 –5 Gelatinous cube Barely mobile, probably significantly paralyzed
2-3 –4 Many oozes, living wall, sea urchin Incapable of moving without great effort
4–5 –3 Hungry fog Visible paralysis or physical difficulty
6–7 –2 Purple worm, ogre zombie Significant klutz or very slow to react
8–9 –1 Ogre, basilisk, fire giant, tendriculos Somewhat slow, occasionally trips over own feet
10–11 +0 Human, triton, boar, giant fire beetle Capable of usually catching a small tossed object, average human agility
12–13 +1 Bugbear, lammasu, hobgoblin Able to often hit large targets at a distance
14–15 +2 Displacer beast, hieracosphinx Can catch or dodge a medium-speed surprise projectile
16–17 +3 Blink dog, wraith, lion, octopus Able to often hit small targets at a distance
18–19 +4 Astral deva, ethereal filcher Light on feet, able to often hit small moving targets at a distance
20–21 +5 Arrowhawk, bone devil Graceful, able to flow from one action into another easily
22-23 +6 Kirin, dweomercat Very graceful, capable of dodging multiple thrown objects
24-25 +7 Cat lord, balor Moves like water, reacting to all situations with almost no effort
32–33 +11 Elder air elemental Moves like the wind, capable of reactions unseen by mortals, reaction-time is virtually instantaneous
))

Some campaigns I use point buy with my players because I wanted a more grounded campaign, other times I give them a higher stat array because I am going to be giving out magic items to BBEG or I want to dig deeper into the MM. Reading the comments I am thinking people are thinking I am saying the players decide the stats and not the DM...

Your completely dismissive and graceless response:



it is simply higher starting stats.


It is disingenuous to say what you think, some one responds, then you ignore their response and say what you think a second time and then say they have no intention of listening.

I know when someone is stuck on a point and cannot see past it. I have displayed an ample amount of willingness to discuss the idea, but when every response is "So this is just about giving people higher numbers" I think I get everything out of that statement the first time you make it and don't really need to hear it 3 more times.

In short. No it is not about just giving people higher numbers, I am insulted by your lack of respect for my time and effort to respond that it is not and to wave away my response with "Yeah, say what you want to say but I am going to tell you what you really mean".


If a player comes to you with a character concept of wanting to basically play Buckaroo Bonzai, do they just get all 18 stats?

No they get to find a new DM because they only care about number crunching and winning D&D. As it was so amply pointed out by someone else, this required mature players and I am realizing that it is impossible for some people to comprehend just what a mature player really is.

I guess I just have been blessed to play with great players and others sadly have not.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Thing to consider: if a character's backstory is such that they should start with particularly noteworthy stats, should they really be starting at level 1-3? A character whose background experiences justify the kind of stats you could get with a 32 point buy, say, is probably a character whose background experiences have given it enough experience to level up a couple times.

[JNAProductions]

If we aren’t understanding what you’re saying, Drache, perhaps you haven’t explained it well.

[stoutstien]

if every player is has the same opportunities for style of stat selection then you could do whatever you want and it will be fine.

[Mellack]

No they get to find a new DM because they only care about number crunching and winning D&D. As it was so amply pointed out by someone else, this required mature players and I am realizing that it is impossible for some people to comprehend just what a mature player really is.

I guess I just have been blessed to play with great players and others sadly have not.

Why do you assume they are number-crunching? People take inspiration for fictional characters all the time. If I write a 10 page backstory, listing all the things I have imagined my character doing, why do you think that is trying to "win D&D" rather than just a character I have put a lot of thought into.
Same way if I say I want to play Harry Dresden. He was part of the wizard council, he has great strength and constitution from his time as the Winter Knight, has trained in combat with police, and has wisdom from years of working as a private investigator. Does he get high stats or not? Is his stats and backstory fair to the other players?

[Drache64]

Thing to consider: if a character's backstory is such that they should start with particularly noteworthy stats, should they really be starting at level 1-3? A character whose background experiences justify the kind of stats you could get with a 32 point buy, say, is probably a character whose background experiences have given it enough experience to level up a couple times.

I agree, that would be a talking point with the player. But that is true of any campaign, when a level 1 wizard says he used to be a lich and summoned the sun to destroy a planet, that isn't a stat issue it's a player back story issue.


If we aren’t understanding what you’re saying, Drache, perhaps you haven’t explained it well.

I would be happy to discuss. I can't answer questions that people don't ask.

When someone says "Is this just about stats?, how do you handle XYZ" and I write multiple paragraphs explaining everything ans the response is

"So it's just about stats"

That's not a productive conversation and in the goal of the post (fleshing out my idea) it doesn't further my aim, it only detracts from it.

If they don't want to learn and simply accuse me of wanting to run higher stats, then that is their prerogative, they can make those accusations and I am free to move on from that discussion.

If they were actually wanting to help me flesh out the idea then they would ask questions instead of making accusations.


Why do you assume they are number-crunching? People take inspiration for fictional characters all the time. If I write a 10 page backstory, listing all the things I have imagined my character doing, why do you think that is trying to "win D&D" rather than just a character I have put a lot of thought into.
Same way if I say I want to play Harry Dresden. He was part of the wizard council, he has great strength and constitution from his time as the Winter Knight, has trained in combat with police, and has wisdom from years of working as a private investigator. Does he get high stats or not? Is his stats and backstory fair to the other players?

That would be a conversation about their character fitting the campaign. It is easy to say "no you cannot be green lantern" and the line moves down from there, you can say "no you cannot be an elite investigator" the thing is that this whole process aside, some character concepts regardless of stats don't fit well with a level 1 character, it's kind of a side issue.

First decide on a character backstory that fits the campaign, then stat it. Yes some characters might have better stats then others, my current group is pretty balanced but it isn't about making superman, it's about make sure the player gets satisfaction out of their character and campaign.

That is a hard balance, there can be many books written on just such a thing and I am sure many would have contradictions to the other as it is not a definitive process you have to know your group.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree, that would be a talking point with the player. But that is true of any campaign, when a level 1 wizard says he used to be a lich and summoned the sun to destroy a planet, that isn't a stat issue it's a player back story issue.



I would be happy to discuss. I can't answer questions that people don't ask.

When someone says "Is this just about stats?, how do you handle XYZ" and I write multiple paragraphs explaining everything ans the response is

"So it's just about stats"

That's not a productive conversation and in the goal of the post (fleshing out my idea) it doesn't further my aim, it only detracts from it.

If they don't want to learn and simply accuse me of wanting to run higher stats, then that is their prerogative, they can make those accusations and I am free to move on from that discussion.

If they were actually wanting to help me flesh out the idea then they would ask questions instead of making accusations.

Ah, I get the point. The point is to not treat your players like they're stupid by assuming the thing they want are stats. Given, stats were still a priority (which is what NaughtyTiger was saying), as the player would have otherwise accepted your recommended stats, which your rebuttal is "Sure, but the point is that we compromised, because that's what you do when you value each other's opinion, and forcing their choice (say, through Point Buy) removes that connection between player and DM".

Makes sense now, I got it.

Still not a fan of stat majiggering, but I get why some people would like it. Seems like adding a lot of work for what's effectively a point-buy system that's based off of a "gut feeling" (no offense). Not saying it doesn't have its perks on the DM-Player interaction aspect, I'm just not sure why having the Point Buy system would have to remove that interaction, and why the non-Point-Buy option was so different from the suggestion that it required changing.

[stoutstien]

Ah, I get the point. The point is to not treat your players like they're stupid by assuming the thing they want are stats. Given, stats were still a priority (which is what NaughtyTiger was saying), as the player would have otherwise accepted your recommended stats, which your rebuttal is "Sure, but the point is that we compromised, because that's what you do when you value each other's opinion, and forcing their choice (say, through Point Buy) removes that connection between player and DM".

Makes sense now, I got it.

Still not a fan of stat majiggering, but I get why some people would like it. It's... hard to break the feeling that some players are there to break your game and make the most OP, damage-crunching murderhobos. Heck, even I've gotten paranoid over it and just came off as a massive jerk. But trust is a two-way street and all that.

off topic but in my last campaign i use a NPC block that when killed they exploded dealing damage equal to the value of the damage they revived past zero. even with fore shadowing and plenty of warning signs the party's resident min/max damage blender ended up knocking out 2 other party members in addition off killing themselves.

[NaughtyTiger]

Your completely dismissive and graceless response:

it is simply higher starting stats.
It is disingenuous to say what you think, some one responds, then you ignore their response and say what you think a second time and then say they have no intention of listening.

It is disingenuous to snip my quote to make it look like I was dismissive. I responded and asked questions.
You literally cut out my response. Then accuse me of not listening.

What criteria to you select an 18 vs a 16?
What is 2 18s too much?
Why are 8s bad?
Should all players be balanced?

Again when your opening statement is literally you want more 15s, no 8s, how am I supposed to reconcile that with your contention that it isn't about the numbers.

[Nagog]

Have you heard the legend of Old Man Henderson?

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson


While backstory-driven stats can be flavorful and fun in concept (and effective with some players, typically those who are also good DMs), its also a system that begs to be abused.

If you'd like a system to help with making MAD characters just as viable as SAD ones, I'd present the party with various Arrays with different layouts, for example one array has one 20 but 2-3 8s, while another has 2 17s and only 1 8, and a third (for the truly MAD builds) with 3 15s and the rest mostly 10-11s. You'd have to mess with it a bit to make it balanced, but it allows for different options for different builds.

[Drache64]

as the player would have otherwise accepted your recommended stats

I mean I hate to spoil one's illusions ... But it has to be said... That player he isn't... Well, I feel bad being the one to tell you this... Especially since so many people are so connected to him... I'll just come right out and say it... That player in the example is fictional. I made him up for an example. I'm so sorry everyone.

The real people (6 of them) they were fine with the proposed stats, no rebuttal, no haggling, they thought the stats fit their characters and we're excited to focus on the game. I merely made up Bounty McOrcerson to show how a player and a DM can compromise should they need to.

That being said it seems like most everyone here just wants to have 18s in every stat.

I guess I am really just a lucky DM with great players.

[Man_Over_Game]

Should all players be balanced?

Yes. We can assume that most players want to be in the spotlight for their fair share. And even for those that don't, high stats open up more options rather than take them away.

A smart character can always be played as an idiot. However, I cannot multiclass as a Monk without 13 Wisdom, and I likely cannot be a melee combatant if I had an 8 into Wisdom as that Monk (as my AC would likely be too low).

Thematically, there is a reason I shouldn't have too low of stats, as they have consequences that are potentially detrimental to the theme of my character (now that I can't afford to multiclass into Warlock, I have to now value my theme vs. my build).


Technically, you can fix this by just handing out too many stats, but that poses another problem, related to the gaming portion of DnD, which is that a player has more fun seeing what he wants than getting what he wants.

Cap a guy off at 20, and he'll not know what to look forward to. However, cap all of your players at 15, and now they have a surprising number of choices that dramatically impact what they can do. Giving your players what they ask for without making them earn it is actually a recipe for disaster (See: Borderlands 3, an excellent experiment showing what happens when you spoil your gamers).

So you don't want their stats to be too low (unless they're sure that they aren't limiting to the character's theme), and you don't want their stats to be too high. Surprisingly enough, the best way to keep your players' stats is to keep them slightly boring. This opens up a wide variety of options, and still gives them plenty of future growth to look forward to achieving.

It shouldn't be about what they did, but rather what they will do, and making them perfect right off the bat (even if that means some subpar stats) takes away that focus on growth.

[micahaphone]

I like being able to give players extra stats in less important scores, but I'm concerned that it would incentivize certain backstories and characters.

For example, I have a character idea of an old farmer who goes off adventuring to check in on his adult kids and to see the world. Cheekily named Norman Manderson. Exact opposite of an edgelord. Mechanically a human battlemaster fighter, definitely taking Commanding Strike maneuver, dumping dex because he's old and a bit slow at the joints, and having decent wisdom to dispense advice to his younger party members. A real wholesome dad figure.

If I do the proposed DM-generated stats, will I have a ****tier array than another player who shows up to the table with a kickass warlock who took part in a coup and had to flee once the new king turned on him, but he has been a master assassin doing freelance work since then?

[Bosh]

Certainly, allow me to clarify. I said "I thought about working with the DM to tell him your character concept and work together to stat the character." This was meaning the method involves working with the DM to build your character. I am the DM but I am proposing the method to a group that I assume is largely players as most D&D tables are multiple players to 1 DM, was just a wording choice.

I am both a DM and a Player across 2 different campaigns. I play in 1, and DM the other 2. I am using this method in my latest campaign.


My session zero is not usually a typical session zero, it is a few meetings, calls and texts about starting up a new campaign, working with a chracter on what they want to play, what their story is, how to tie them into the main plot and to make sure they have significant space for progression. I want to know their aspirations for their character and what they would like to see their character do at the table.

*snip*

Looking at some of the examples like someone who is "so good" at sharpshooting that they stand out in an army or an "orc warlord" those character concepts don't fit first level PCs. If someone gives you a background that matches a character with a few levels under their belt but they're rolling up a first level PC then character concept and mechanics aren't going to match whatever stats you give them.

I'd either start at a higher level or make sure the PCs make characters those concepts fit the level they're at.

I wouldn't mind using this system in my current group. It would fix the characters of the people who gimp themselves for RP reason and the biggest munchkin in our group is terrible at minmaxing so it should work out. Personally I'd take it as a challenge and purposefully have the lowest stats in the group and then be a moon druid or something.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes. We can assume that most players want to be in the spotlight for their fair share. And even for those that don't, high stats open up more options rather than take them away.

A smart character can always be played as an idiot. However, I cannot multiclass as a Monk without 13 Wisdom, and I likely cannot be a melee combatant if I had an 8 into Wisdom as that Monk (as my AC would likely be too low).

Thematically, there is a reason I shouldn't have too low of stats, as they have consequences that are potentially detrimental to the theme of my character (now that I can't afford to multiclass into Warlock, I have to now value my theme vs. my build).


If the DM is setting ability scores based on his own system, then DM can wave multiclass prerequistes.

Drache did not suggest balance between players was a goal or consideration.
edit: actually, i don't know how to balance it between players...

the DM gives out a set of scores to Bob, Bob is okay with em
the DM gives out a set of scores to Jane, Jane protests and the DM adds 3 points to her scores
the DM gives out a set of scores to Tim (at Bob's level or at Jane's level?)
does the DM revise Bob's scores up a little?

If the point is to give out ability scores based on backstory/roleplay, then no the player shouldn't roleplay smarter/dumber crass/more charming than the ability score he negotiated.


Drache has done this already, it would be helpful if he would explain what the minus's were, how he handled balance, and how he chose a particular score.
But instead of answering my questions, he says I am ignoring him.

[Drache64]

*snip*

Looking at some of the examples like someone who is "so good" at sharpshooting that they stand out in an army or an "orc warlord" those character concepts don't fit first level PCs. If someone gives you a background that matches a character with a few levels under their belt but they're rolling up a first level PC then character concept and stats aren't going to match whatever stats you give them.

I'd either start at a higher level or make sure the PCs make characters those concepts fit their level they're at.

I wouldn't mind using this system in my current group. It would fix the characters of the people who gimp themselves for RP reason and the biggest munchkin in our group is terrible at minmaxing so it should work out. Personally I'd take it as a challenge and purposefully have the lowest stats in the group and then be a moon druid or something.

I can respect that, I also never specified that either example started at level 1, that's up to each individual DM

[theantesse]

To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of DMs do this with their NPCs (and monsters). They make up believable and fair numbers based on the NPCs "narrative" and of course the challenge of any encounters.

For good players, I could see the same courtesy being extended. But I think the good player is going to slide scores down just as much as slide scores up...as well as make their stand for secondary ability scores rather than primary ability scores (the intelligent fighter who reads books comes to mind).

[Man_Over_Game]

To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of DMs do this with their NPCs (and monsters). They make up believable and fair numbers based on the NPCs "narrative" and of course the challenge of any encounters.

For good players, I could see the same courtesy being extended. But I think the good player is going to slide scores down just as much as slide scores up...as well as make their stand for secondary ability scores rather than primary ability scores (the intelligent fighter who reads books comes to mind).

That's a bit different, though. If the MM made monsters that I thought were fun and interesting for what I was looking to do, I'd be using it. But it doesn't consistently, and looking up 5 different stat blocks each session just isn't worth the work compared to just eyeballing it. Plus, if we make a mistake, fixing it can be done on the fly.

A player's stats only really need to be decided once, and fixing a mistake because you "eyeballed it" is a lot more complicated of a problem when that problem may come up in future sessions. It's something you want to get right the first time.

[Pex]

I do not play or own PF2E, is there a way to look at their system without buying an expensive book just to reformat an idea I already came up with?

pf2.d20pfsrd.com

You can read the rules online for free. At the top left click on 'Characters'.

[Composer99]

Help me out here: what is there to flesh out?

(1) Provided you and your players agree that you will come up with ability scores in a free-form manner, rather than the methods offered in the PHB, well and good.

(2) Provided you are able to negotiate with each player an ability score array that satisfies both of you and doesn't cause any disharmony at the table (*), well and good.

If that works for your "table culture", I'm not sure what else there is to say?

(*) This doesn't require a lack of trust; it only requires either or both of players with sufficiently different playstyles that any disparities grate in some way or another and a DM whose efforts to carefully balance encounters to give characters sufficient chances to meaningfully contribute to the game in a manner that satisfies their playstyles fall even a little bit short of what's needed.

[Man_Over_Game]

Help me out here: what is there to flesh out?

(1) Provided you and your players agree that you will come up with ability scores in a free-form manner, rather than the methods offered in the PHB, well and good.

(2) Provided you are able to negotiate with each player an ability score array that satisfies both of you and doesn't cause any disharmony at the table (*), well and good.

If that works for your "table culture", I'm not sure what else there is to say?

(*) This doesn't require a lack of trust; it only requires either or both of players with sufficiently different playstyles that any disparities grate in some way or another and a DM whose efforts to carefully balance encounters to give characters sufficient chances to meaningfully contribute to the game in a manner that satisfies their playstyles fall even a little bit short of what's needed.

Players don't always know what they want out of their game. It took mine 3 5-hour sessions to figure out what kind of campaign/characters they wanted to play. I'm helping my player, who's an informant Rogue in the middle of the crime ring in Neverwinter, turn into a hippie-dippie Druid on Session 5.

Sometimes, people don't think it'll be a problem if someone else is overshadowing them, whether that means they don't know if that's a possibility or that they don't think it'll make things less fun.

But on the flipside, there's generally not much benefit to rewarding the player who wants to overshadow other players, as that's the person who likely deserves it the least.

There may be something gained by making things fair (as there's always the potential that it doesn't matter), but there is generally nothing gained by making things unfair.

[Bosh]

I can respect that, I also never specified that either example started at level 1, that's up to each individual DM

Right. But you can't make a PC in a vacuum. You have to know what level you're making a PC for and take that into account. It's also a VERY VERY common player mistake to give their PC a very involved backstory what is a complete mis-match for the level their PC is starting at.

It's so much of a thing that one day I want to start a PC who was a warlord with a tome of a backstory who was cursed to de-age into a kid (or possibly reincarnated). Would roll with it was a battlemaster halfling (or sword bard) reskinned as a kid with pretensions of grandeur. He knows everything about how to hit people with a sword but his body is just not up to putting it in practice due to the whole being trapped in a kid's body thing.

[Drache64]

pf2.d20pfsrd.com

You can read the rules online for free. At the top left click on 'Characters'.

Interesting! I assumed it wouldn't be open source like v1 since v1 was just reskinned 3.5 content.


Help me out here: what is there to flesh out?

(1) Provided you and your players agree that you will come up with ability scores in a free-form manner, rather than the methods offered in the PHB, well and good.

(2) Provided you are able to negotiate with each player an ability score array that satisfies both of you and doesn't cause any disharmony at the table (*), well and good.

If that works for your "table culture", I'm not sure what else there is to say?

(*) This doesn't require a lack of trust; it only requires either or both of players with sufficiently different playstyles that any disparities grate in some way or another and a DM whose efforts to carefully balance encounters to give characters sufficient chances to meaningfully contribute to the game in a manner that satisfies their playstyles fall even a little bit short of what's needed.

Take a look at Pex among similar posts.

But I appreciate a large part of the community that always shows up and is like "hey I just stopped in to say I hate your idea". Lol.

Internets gunna internet.

I take your reply to mean "hey man why did you even post on this forum?"

Let me know if I read you wrong

[NaughtyTiger]

But I appreciate a large part of the community that always shows up and is like "hey I just stopped in to say I hate your idea". Lol.

Dude. Absolutely no one said they hated your idea.
You asked for feedback, it was given.

People asked questions and expressed skepticism.

It is unfortunate that you took that feedback personally.

[Sigreid]

There's nothing inherently wrong with this if the group you play with is onboard. It's really not that much different than starting the characters above level 1, with a free feat or a magic item. The potential problem lies with those sacks of meat sitting at the table. It would be very easy for one or more players to feel like they got a raw deal, whether it's true or not. Worse, they might not say anything to avoid coming across as a whiner, but eventually get hostile about it. I mean, you can see on these boards often enough people who prefer standard array or point buy to rolling simply because even though rolling is perfectly fair and equal the results are not necessarily equitable in some people's view.

[JNAProductions]

There's nothing inherently wrong with this if the group you play with is onboard. It's really not that much different than starting the characters above level 1, with a free feat or a magic item. The potential problem lies with those sacks of meat sitting at the table. It would be very easy for one or more players to feel like they got a raw deal, whether it's true or not. Worse, they might not say anything to avoid coming across as a whiner, but eventually get hostile about it. I mean, you can see on these boards often enough people who prefer standard array or point buy to rolling simply because even though rolling is perfectly fair and equal the results are not necessarily equitable in some people's view.

Rolling starts equal.

It very rarely ends equal.

If I'm playing with an array of 16 14 13 12 10 8, and someone else has 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'll be okay with that. I'm a perfectly competent character, even if they have better stats.
But if my array is 12 10 8 4 4 3, and they have 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'm not gonna want to play, without a reroll or the option to switch to point buy or standard array. My character, at their absolute best, has 14 Strength and 12 Constitution (Mountain Dwarf) with the rest of my stats in the negatives. Simply put? I would not have fun playing a character with such poor stats, unless the whole game was set up with everyone having similarly bad stats and it was a Commoner game or something.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Rolling starts equal.

It very rarely ends equal.

If I'm playing with an array of 16 14 13 12 10 8, and someone else has 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'll be okay with that. I'm a perfectly competent character, even if they have better stats.
But if my array is 12 10 8 4 4 3, and they have 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'm not gonna want to play, without a reroll or the option to switch to point buy or standard array. My character, at their absolute best, has 14 Strength and 12 Constitution (Mountain Dwarf) with the rest of my stats in the negatives. Simply put? I would not have fun playing a character with such poor stats, unless the whole game was set up with everyone having similarly bad stats and it was a Commoner game or something.

This situation is why I'm surprised 5E doesn't include an explicit rule about rerolls, the way previous editions did. In 3E, for instance, your array would be automatically rerolled under normal rules.

[Sigreid]

Rolling starts equal.

It very rarely ends equal.

If I'm playing with an array of 16 14 13 12 10 8, and someone else has 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'll be okay with that. I'm a perfectly competent character, even if they have better stats.
But if my array is 12 10 8 4 4 3, and they have 18 18 17 16 14 12... I'm not gonna want to play, without a reroll or the option to switch to point buy or standard array. My character, at their absolute best, has 14 Strength and 12 Constitution (Mountain Dwarf) with the rest of my stats in the negatives. Simply put? I would not have fun playing a character with such poor stats, unless the whole game was set up with everyone having similarly bad stats and it was a Commoner game or something.

Fine for you and presumably your group. Not a big deal in my group if you're not the highest stat character as sooner or later you will be.

[JNAProductions]

Fine for you and presumably your group. Not a big deal in my group if you're not the highest stat character as sooner or later you will be.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[MaxWilson]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Clearly there's a high degree of character turnover and/or campaign turnover. It's not an uncommon mode of play.

[Composer99]

Take a look at Pex among similar posts.

But I appreciate a large part of the community that always shows up and is like "hey I just stopped in to say I hate your idea". Lol.

Internets gunna internet.

I take your reply to mean "hey man why did you even post on this forum?"

Let me know if I read you wrong

I should think that the plain meaning of the text, "Help me out here: what is there to flesh out?", being a request for clarification, was clear, yes? If I had meant to write "why did you even post on this forum" or something to that effect, I would have just written that.

You wrote:


So instead of rolling for stats I thought about working with the DM to tell him your character concept and work together to stat the character.

Doing this I think makes classes that require many stats like Monk to be more viable for play and RP. Working with the DM on setting your stats to appropriate levels for the character are a great way to possibly have multiple 15's without having 3 8's from point buy or something like a player rolling for stats a getting multiple 18's and putting them in stats that really have nothing to do with their character simply because they want a higher CON.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this should replace rolling for stats in all games always, I just think this could be a fun thing to do in some campaigns at session 0. Rolling for stats or using point buy are still somethings I'd enjoy doing in various campaigns.

What do you guys think? Any tweaks or edits to these ideas?

(1) As far as I can make out from the above, what you were proposing was adding some sort of negotiation with the DM over determining or adjusting ability scores. Well, that's a pretty binary method. Either you are engaged in negotiation or you aren't. And as long as that works for your table, as I noted previously, well and good. Based on my parsing of your initial post and your replies (especially to interlocutors with more critical feedback), there didn't really appear to be anything to tweak or edit: one can either find the concept agreeable or disagreeable.

(2) Based on your reference to Pex's remarks regarding the PF2 ability score generation method, you have clarified that you are also interested in alternate methods of generating ability scores, in addition to "DM and player negotiate". That's fine, as far as it goes. However, I feel confident stating that your original post is not clear on that score.

(3) Remarks such as "Doing this I think makes classes that require may stats like Monk to be more viable ..." hint at the possibility of discussing ability scores at a more conceptual level: What do the numbers mean? What numbers do characters need to be viable? - that sort of thing. That might be valuable when it comes to discussing or evaluating methods for generating ability scores. However, again, I feel confident stating that if you meant to open up such a discussion, the original post isn't very clear.

So, again, help me out here: what is there to flesh out, tweak, or edit? As I have already noted, either you are negotiating ability scores with the DM or you aren't. Did you have in mind some procedure or method by which "working with the DM" becomes something other than simply negotiating? If you don't, were you soliciting ideas for such a thing? If "the concept" isn't "negotiate with the DM", then what is it?

Suffice to say that dismissively asserting that "you guys just don't get the concept" and resorting to remarks that strongly come across as passive-aggressive ("I am realizing that it is impossible for some people to comprehend just what a mature player really is") serve neither to clarify what you mean nor to persuade those who find the concept of negotiating with the DM over ability scores to be disagreeable to see things otherwise.

[Sigreid]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Sure. The person who rolled well this time isn't going to roll well every time, and probably won't next time. Same with the person who rolled low this time. Bob has better stats than Tim this time around, but next time around it's just as likely that Tim will have better stats than Bob.

Edit: Just saw another response above. In every group I've been part of, at least, we don't necessarily abandon characters but we will shelve them for a little while and run others when the group is feeling like they want to do something different for a while.

[JNAProductions]

Sure. The person who rolled well this time isn't going to roll well every time, and probably won't next time. Same with the person who rolled low this time. Bob has better stats than Tim this time around, but next time around it's just as likely that Tim will have better stats than Bob.

Edit: Just saw another response above. In every group I've been part of, at least, we don't necessarily abandon characters but we will shelve them for a little while and run others when the group is feeling like they want to do something different for a while.

Okay. To me-that's not nearly a good enough answer.

Let's say I have to deal with crap stats for four sessions-that's four sessions where I'm not having nearly as much fun as I could've if I had competent stats. Again-I don't mind if someone has better stats than me, but I do mind if my stats are so atrocious as to render my character incompetent inside and outside their niche. It doesn't matter that in a later session, I'll have better stats-I shouldn't be forced to not have fun just to maybe have fun later.

If this works for your table, that's fine-but to me, it's a terrible way to handle it.

[Sigreid]

Okay. To me-that's not nearly a good enough answer.

Let's say I have to deal with crap stats for four sessions-that's four sessions where I'm not having nearly as much fun as I could've if I had competent stats. Again-I don't mind if someone has better stats than me, but I do mind if my stats are so atrocious as to render my character incompetent inside and outside their niche. It doesn't matter that in a later session, I'll have better stats-I shouldn't be forced to not have fun just to maybe have fun later.

If this works for your table, that's fine-but to me, it's a terrible way to handle it.

This is just a different strokes for different folks thing. I personally enjoy the challenge of making the most of a bad setup. To me it's a puzzle to be solved.

Edit: Might be of interest to you that everyone in my group rolls. If someone wanted to do the standard array or point buy, there would be no issue with that. So far, everyone rolls and takes what they get.

[da newt]

What is the point of this thread? If it works for you and the rest of the table, go for it. If it doesn't, don't.

In my opinion there should be rules / limits for starting stats that apply to all of the PCs equally - this makes sense to my idea of fairness.

But if you'd like to do it another way, and your players are good with it, what does it matter what a bunch of people on a msg board think? Run your game.

[Drache64]

What is the point of this thread? If it works for you and the rest of the table, go for it. If it doesn't, don't.

In my opinion there should be rules / limits for starting stats that apply to all of the PCs equally - this makes sense to my idea of fairness.

But if you'd like to do it another way, and your players are good with it, what does it matter what a bunch of people on a msg board think? Run your game.

I just wanted to share an idea that had been largely successful in practice so far and see what others thought of it.

I think a large amount of the criticism has been unfair and negative which was unexpected since in practice it's gone very well.

I apologise for coming to a community to share and discuss an idea. I will get off your forum now, I didn't know I didn't belong here.

[Amdy_vill]

as a long time dm i have found the bast way to get player stats is to just ask the players what they want to do for getting stats. a lot of dms sit back theory crafting about how player will move for every advantage, but we are all adults here and most player when given full freedom still try to play fair.

[NaughtyTiger]

as a long time dm i have found the bast way to get player stats is to just ask the players what they want to do for getting stats. a lot of dms sit back theory crafting about how player will move for every advantage, but we are all adults here and most player when given full freedom still try to play fair.

I don't think anyone on this thread made the claim that a player or DM is trying to cheat the system.

[SirGraystone]

Same way if I say I want to play Harry Dresden. He was part of the wizard council, he has great strength and constitution from his time as the Winter Knight, has trained in combat with police, and has wisdom from years of working as a private investigator. Does he get high stats or not? Is his stats and backstory fair to the other players?

Background history of a character of course will depend a lot of the campaign and the level the players start at. Harry Dresden is a concept character is fine, but that's not a level 1 character, not with Winter Knight mantel and a decade or two of experience...

[NaughtyTiger]

I reread the OP's posts and discussed it with my wife.

I was definitely stuck on the OP's stated desire to pump up the scores; as such, I missed the other point of his idea.

Correct me if i am still wrong.

The DM will choose the player's ability scores based on the DM's interpretation of the player's character.
The DM can do this through point buy or arbitrarily setting the scores, but the core is that the DM chooses.

This bothered me, and my wife clarified why...

My wife read it as:

The player has to ask the DM for permission to play a smart guy or a skilled guy...
And the bump in total ability scores was a sweetener to help the player accept that he is playing the DM's character.


Part of the fun of making a PC is making the PC.
This method takes the design out of the player's hands.
What is the justification for the DM taking over the design:

players tend to min-max?
the players don't know how to make a PC?
the DM knows what the players will enjoy?
the DM wants to build characters?




CON: 12 (As a military man you have a decent health, but you are getting along in age)
Come level 4, is the player allowed to bump to con 14? He isn't getting any younger.