Stat Generation (the best solution I've found after 5000 hours of DM play)

[strangebloke]

So stat generation is a thorny issue, particularly on this site. We have a lot of ttrpg boomers who argue that "3d6 in order" is the only way to go, and we also have a lot of optimizers who like to assume point buy because it allows you to make definite plans about the path of your character without getting stat-screwed or stat-blessed. Both approaches have their points. Point-buy can lead to a lot of characters feeling very proscribed and generic, while rolling of any sort can lead to massively overpowered or underpowered characters, and certain archetypes (like monk for example) requires a very specific statline to function well.

I'm by no means the most experienced 5e DM on here, but I have run a lot of tables with a lot of different stat generation methods, and I think I've arrived at the best compromise:


Players have to choose which method they want to use before rolling

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set.

The possibility of getting truly 'screwed' is basically zero with both options, but with the second you do have a possibility of ending up with really weird statlines that don't fit your archetype. A player who has a very particular race/class combination in mind might not choose option two, whereas someone who's feeling more spontaneous (or doesn't know what they want to play) can have the fun of rolling a WHOLE LOT of dice.

It's very rare for someone to be truly disappointed, but somewhat common for someone to feel pleasantly surprised and IMO that's what a good system should shoot for. Not to say that alternate methods are 'wrong' but I think this does capture some of the best of both worlds.

[KorvinStarmast]

So stat generation is a thorny issue, particularly on this site. We have a lot of ttrpg boomers who argue that "3d6 in order" is the only way to go I have not seen that argument made for this edition. It fit a few of the original editions, though. The default is roll 4d6b3, arrange to suit. For those who would like to see if 3d6 in order works for this edition, with the power creep that has happened since 1974, it's an interesting challenge in chargen.

We also have a lot of optimizers who like to assume point buy because it allows you to make definite plans about the path of your character without getting stat-screwed or stat-blessed. It certainly makes for a player controlled customization of stats, yes. I like point buy well enough, I prefer the basic 4d6k3.


I think I've arrived at the best compromise:
Players have to choose which method they want to use before rolling:

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set. Nice, and very player friendly. *golf clap*

I saw a proposal on another site for a brilliant option that is 'the rule of 25 or 'the rule of 27' it goes like this.

Roll 3d6. Write those three numbers down.
Subtract each one from 25. Write those down.
Those are your stats.
Example. 16, 12, 10. yields "9, 13, 15" under Rule of 25, and 11, 15, 17 under Rule of 27.
16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 for rule of 25, for example.
You could also do 'rule of 23, whatever ...

[JNAProductions]

Pick six numbers. These are your pre-racial stats. No number may be higher than 18 or less than 8. You may modify them freely up until the game starts, and may pick duplicate numbers.

This is what I do. It's actually modified from what I used to have-it used to be you could pick 3-18, and people kept gimping their characters too hard. So I made it 8 minimum.

[strangebloke]

I have not seen that argument made for this edition. It fit a few of the original editions, though. The default is roll 4d6b3, arrange to suit. For those who would like to see if 3d6 in order works for this edition, with the power creep that has happened since 1974, it's an interesting challenge in chargen.
It certainly makes for a player controlled customization of stats, yes. I like point buy well enough, I prefer the basic 4d6k3.

Nice, and very player friendly. *golf clap*

I know I know, I'm mostly joking about "3d6 in order" boomers. Funnily enough, I misunderstood the 4d6b3 instruction for my first campaign and just rolled 4d6 for each of my six stats. My DM checked over my sheet, saw that I had two 18s and a 19, and said, "wow, you rolled pretty good!"

[JoeJ]

So stat generation is a thorny issue, particularly on this site. We have a lot of ttrpg boomers who argue that "3d6 in order" is the only way to go, and we also have a lot of optimizers who like to assume point buy because it allows you to make definite plans about the path of your character without getting stat-screwed or stat-blessed. Both approaches have their points. Point-buy can lead to a lot of characters feeling very proscribed and generic, while rolling of any sort can lead to massively overpowered or underpowered characters, and certain archetypes (like monk for example) requires a very specific statline to function well.

I'm by no means the most experienced 5e DM on here, but I have run a lot of tables with a lot of different stat generation methods, and I think I've arrived at the best compromise:


Players have to choose which method they want to use before rolling

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set.

The possibility of getting truly 'screwed' is basically zero with both options, but with the second you do have a possibility of ending up with really weird statlines that don't fit your archetype. A player who has a very particular race/class combination in mind might not choose option two, whereas someone who's feeling more spontaneous (or doesn't know what they want to play) can have the fun of rolling a WHOLE LOT of dice.

It's very rare for someone to be truly disappointed, but somewhat common for someone to feel pleasantly surprised and IMO that's what a good system should shoot for. Not to say that alternate methods are 'wrong' but I think this does capture some of the best of both worlds.

A third option if you're creating characters together in session 0 is to have every player roll 4D6b3 once but, make all the sets of numbers available so that any player can choose whichever of the sets they like best.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know I know, I'm mostly joking about "3d6 in order" boomers.
Not your best joke ever, no worries, it's not where your paycheck comes from. :smallcool:

Maybe you ought to make less fun of boomers. Funnily enough, I misunderstood the 4d6b3 instruction for my first campaign and just rolled 4d6 for each of my six stats. My DM checked over my sheet, saw that I had two 18s and a 19, and said, "wow, you rolled pretty good!" *cackle*

We had an AD&D optional rule that worked pretty well which was roll 3d6 12 times and take the best six scores. I saw that used quite a bit. (Codified in the DMG as "Method II).
Method II:

All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.
What was Method I?

All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded. Maybe you ought to thank the boomers, eh? :smallcool:
(Citations courtesy of 1979 AD&D DMG)

[strangebloke]

A third option if you're creating characters together in session 0 is to have every player roll 4D6b3 once but, make all the sets of numbers available so that any player can choose whichever of the sets they like best.

I've seen this but IMO giving too many sets leads to a strongly over-centralized game. Everyone just picks the statline with two 18s and two 16s

Having a 'fair' method is less important to me than having variety between the characters. To each their own, naturally.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having a 'fair' method is less important to me than having variety between the characters. To each their own, naturally. It really depends on the group, I think.
Have you ever tried the "rule of 25" approach I outlined above?

[Xervous]

My biggest gripe with ability score generation is not so much in the actual method of generation, but with how the means of progression are wholly divorced. You’re using some method to enforce that values above or below a certain point are weighted differently, but then flat ASIs get slapped on top. Sure that 18 roll is highly uncommon and an 8 is on the lower end, so why does going 18->20 work the same as 8->10? Overly incentivizes pursuing a single stat.

[strangebloke]

This is what I do. It's actually modified from what I used to have-it used to be you could pick 3-18, and people kept gimping their characters too hard. So I made it 8 minimum.
LOL, definitely seems like you have a lovely group of experienced players. I play with a lot of newer players who would be confused/annoyed about something like that

Not your best joke ever, no worries, it's not where your paycheck comes from. :smallcool:
*cackle*
I'm getting paid?

We had an AD&D optional rule that worked pretty well which was roll 3d6 12 times and take the best six scores. I saw that used quite a bit. (Codified in the DMG as "Method II).
Method II:

What was Method I?
Maybe you ought to thank the boomers, eh? :smallcool:
(Citations courtesy of 1979 AD&D DMG)
Oh yes, as I said, even the extreme method of 3d6 in order has its merits. But in my experience the people who prefer rolling (even method 1 rolling) do tend to be older than your average player.... but then so am I at this point.

It really depends on the group, I think.
Have you ever tried the "rule of 25" approach I outlined above?
Yes I have. In my experience it leads to statlines that are incredibly flat. Its very likely to end up with six stats all between 9 and 14, which kind of defeats the point of rolling to begin with.

granted I was rolling 4d6b3 before hand, which definitely made the problem worse.

My biggest gripe with ability score generation is not so much in the actual method of generation, but with how the means of progression are wholly divorced. You’re using some method to enforce that values above or below a certain point are weighted differently, but then flat ASIs get slapped on top. Sure that 18 roll is highly uncommon and an 8 is on the lower end, so why does going 18->20 work the same as 8->10? Overly incentivizes pursuing a single stat.
well, to an extent, but that was already the case. +INT for a wizard is always going to be the best option and +STR is almost never going to be worth it.

[Selion]

I have not seen that argument made for this edition. It fit a few of the original editions, though. The default is roll 4d6b3, arrange to suit. For those who would like to see if 3d6 in order works for this edition, with the power creep that has happened since 1974, it's an interesting challenge in chargen.
It certainly makes for a player controlled customization of stats, yes. I like point buy well enough, I prefer the basic 4d6k3.

Nice, and very player friendly. *golf clap*

I saw a proposal on another site for a brilliant option that is 'the rule of 25 or 'the rule of 27' it goes like this.

Roll 3d6. Write those three numbers down.
Subtract each one from 25. Write those down.
Those are your stats.
Example. 16, 12, 10. yields "9, 13, 15" under Rule of 25, and 11, 15, 17 under Rule of 27.
16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 for rule of 25, for example.
You could also do 'rule of 23, whatever ...

Rule of 25 is exactly 3d6+4 (with high results and low results switched)
Rule of 27 is 3d6+6

[ProsecutorGodot]

Our table uses "roll 4d6k3" for an array 3 times, take your favorite.

It was only recently, for our Descent into Avernus characters, where we all managed to defy statistical probability and roll under point buy, so we added a clause that you can choose point buy if you don't like your options.

[Waazraath]

So stat generation is a thorny issue, particularly on this site. We have a lot of ttrpg boomers who argue that "3d6 in order" is the only way to go, and we also have a lot of optimizers who like to assume point buy because it allows you to make definite plans about the path of your character without getting stat-screwed or stat-blessed. Both approaches have their points. Point-buy can lead to a lot of characters feeling very proscribed and generic, while rolling of any sort can lead to massively overpowered or underpowered characters, and certain archetypes (like monk for example) requires a very specific statline to function well.

I'm by no means the most experienced 5e DM on here, but I have run a lot of tables with a lot of different stat generation methods, and I think I've arrived at the best compromise:


Players have to choose which method they want to use before rolling

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set.

The possibility of getting truly 'screwed' is basically zero with both options, but with the second you do have a possibility of ending up with really weird statlines that don't fit your archetype. A player who has a very particular race/class combination in mind might not choose option two, whereas someone who's feeling more spontaneous (or doesn't know what they want to play) can have the fun of rolling a WHOLE LOT of dice.

It's very rare for someone to be truly disappointed, but somewhat common for someone to feel pleasantly surprised and IMO that's what a good system should shoot for. Not to say that alternate methods are 'wrong' but I think this does capture some of the best of both worlds.


Funny you mention it. I'm contemplating a really nasty, gritty, post apocalyptic horror world the next time it's my turn to DM, where 3d6 in order is exactly where everybody is starting with. If my players approve of course, so I'm not sure it's gonna happen :)

Having said that, your suggestion seems fine. Players choice if they really want to aim for something, quite some random factor (still), and potential surprising stat arrays all together.

[x3n0n]

I saw a proposal on another site for a brilliant option that is 'the rule of 25 or 'the rule of 27' it goes like this.

Roll 3d6. Write those three numbers down.
Subtract each one from 25. Write those down.
Those are your stats.
Example. 16, 12, 10. yields "9, 13, 15" under Rule of 25, and 11, 15, 17 under Rule of 27.
16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 for rule of 25, for example.

This one was new to me; thanks!


In my experience it leads to statlines that are incredibly flat. Its very likely to end up with six stats all between 9 and 14, which kind of defeats the point of rolling to begin with.

I can totally see that with rule of 23.

However, with rule of 25, that sounds very surprising to me. 3d6 should generate lots of 9s and 10s, which (under rule of 25) output 16 and 15, respectively.
Rule of 27 seems exceedingly generous: an 8 (a likely roll) generates a 19!

@KorvinStarmast: do you reroll numbers that are low enough to generate a 19 or higher?

Edit: quick google searches for "rule of 25 D&D" didn't come up with anything promising in the first page on my end; I was curious to see if it has been discussed elsewhere.

[Jaeda]

One strategy I saw here a couple months ago that I kind of want to try out is a snake generation. Everyone rolls a full complement of stats (4d6k3 x6), with an extra array rolled by the DM, but then the arrays are recombined by ordering them from biggest to smallest and then snaking down and back up again so that each array is roughly balanced but still noticeably different. Each player can take one of the generated arrays.

For example, I just used AnyDice to get 5 arrays (4 players): [12, 14, 14, 15, 13, 14], [15, 17, 12, 11, 11, 13], [13, 8, 8, 11, 9, 11], [12, 10, 10, 16, 10, 14], [15, 10, 16, 13, 13, 11].

In absolute order, this is [17, 16, 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 14, 14, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9, 8, 8]

This would become five arrays:
[17, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8]
[16, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8]
[16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9]
[15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10]
[15, 15, 13, 12, 10, 10]

Each player could pick (optionally: a different) one of those five arrays.

[borg286]

One thing that might reduce the variance is to let them go point-buy or pick their race and class before rolling 4d6b3. One main reason I hope for the option to do 4d6b3 is that there is a decent chance I'll get at least 1x 18, which means I don't have as much pressure to take a +2 ASI early on.
Having one player a SAD character isn't that game-breaking. But having a power-gamer with 2x 17's before racials can outshine lots of other builds. The chances of this is small but non-negligible. One way to keep the power gamers in tow is to have them pick the race and class so they have to hedge their bets. This way if they get really good rolls they'll not be able to maximize their benefits on it. A SAD build getting 3x 17's will likely only have marginally better HP/Con saves and marginally better initiative.

[JoeJ]

One thing that might reduce the variance is to let them go point-buy or pick their race and class before rolling 4d6b3. One main reason I hope for the option to do 4d6b3 is that there is a decent chance I'll get at least 1x 18, which means I don't have as much pressure to take a +2 ASI early on.
Having one player a SAD character isn't that game-breaking. But having a power-gamer with 2x 17's before racials can outshine lots of other builds. The chances of this is small but non-negligible. One way to keep the power gamers in tow is to have them pick the race and class so they have to hedge their bets. This way if they get really good rolls they'll not be able to maximize their benefits on it. A SAD build getting 3x 17's will likely only have marginally better HP/Con saves and marginally better initiative.

Choosing race and class before generating ability scores is RAW.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

First to the OP: I don't think there is any place for that word on here. If the word was sexist or racist it wouldn't be acceptable, so I'm not sure why you think ageism is acceptable even as a joke.

On the topic I can't imagine using any system in 5e that creates results regularly that are stronger than a 27 point buy; As a DM I'm constantly having to boost the bad guys, and even more so with the recent power creep, so making players stronger doesn't seem to be an improvement. Also with the built in ASIs if a player wants a 20 they can have a 20 fairly quickly anyway.

[Tanarii]

That's stat inflation.

IMO the best is the PHB way: choose before hand standard array or roll (or PB if available). And if you choose to roll you're stuck with it.

Btw 5000 hours is impressive. At 16 hours (4 sessions) per week that's 5-1/2 years.


I have not seen that argument made for this edition. It fit a few of the original editions, though. The default is roll 4d6b3, arrange to suit. For those who would like to see if 3d6 in order works for this edition, with the power creep that has happened since 1974, it's an interesting challenge in chargen. I mean, 4d6d1 has been the standard since AD&D ...

[TyGuy]

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set.[/INDENT]

I think a lot of people (myself included) want the excitement and variety of randomness but with a method that cooperates with what character(s) we have in mind to build.

I've tried your #1. It's ok, but it still allows for a meh moment when the array is higher than point buy, but not at all conducive to the build(s) the player has in mind. It also has a floor but without a ceiling, some players can really luck out and put the other stats to shame. I've done #2 but with 3 sets to choose from instead of 2. 3 sets is a lot, but it further reduces the probability of not getting one decent option. With that many attempts, the chance for a super strong array is high.

Point buy is so sterile and straight forward. I also don't care for wild power swings between the PC stats, as a player or DM. So I've also seen/tried:

Cards. Pros: everyone has the same sum of stats. It has a random element that won't swing super hard. Cons: randomness can still stump MAD builds or make hard to specialize even-across-the-board arrays.

Everyone rolls 1 score (4d6b3) (DM included and/or some players do multiple to get to 6). The DM and/or table decides if the array sucks and needs to have some re-rolls. That is the stat array for the PCs for the campaign. Pros: level playing field, everyone has the same array. The array is random. There can be a consensus on the array's acceptability. Cons: can still gimp MAD builds or be generally restricting, but this is somewhat alleviated with the consensus aspect.

[Sam113097]

My favorite method is to generate a 4d6b3 array as a table. During Session 0 for my current game, each player (and me, the DM) rolled 4d6b3 once, and each character was made with the resulting ability score array, assigning scores to whichever abilities they wanted to (I have 5 players in my campaign, so we ended up with 6 ability scores, which worked nicely). This made the characters roughly even as far as stats go but added in some randomness and was fun to do at the table.

[Imbalance]

Part of me wants to link stats generation method to options availability. I haven't implemented it at home and might never do this in any games I DM, but I thought about character generation in terms of a selection of paths with regards to Tasha's, and my take led me to narrow it to three preferences that I like as a player in theory:

Path one would be by-the-book, pre-Tasha's, using non-variant creation options from the PHB and any comination of player options from officially published sources only.

Path two would be point-buy and permit variants, including Tasha's, but limit to PHB+1 for options.

Path three is for the daring - 3d6, in order, but opens options to include everything published plus approved UA/homebrew.

In the case of really bad rolls, I like the option of either a starting feat to compensate or a new set of rolls.

Point is I want to learn my character's strengths by playing them instead of dwelling on the odds based on starting values, but as DM I have no desire to force that philosophy on my players. If I were to even bring this trio of methods to a table I was running, it would be with an open ear to modifying or ditching entirely in favor of what works best and is most fair for the table.

[Zhorn]

IMO the best is the PHB way: choose before hand standard array or roll (or PB if available). And if you choose to roll you're stuck with it.
Likewise. By the book is best on that front.

... Though as a DM I tend to be a little forgiving to my players when they roll. I allow rerolls (but not enforce them) if;
They don't have at least one score of 15 after racial ASI are added
The sum of the modifiers is negative
This is not to ensure 'viable characters' since as DM I have the ability to scale the adventure up or down to meet any relative character power level. I do it because I don't want my player to feel like their stats are holding them back compared to others in the group (it's an illusion, but a firmly cemented one).


edit: clarification, Tanarii has kindly pointed out this could be misinterpreted. I'm talking about a players perception of "I rolled low, therefore this character is not going to be viable for play compared to the rest of the party" not "John rolled an 18 and my best is a 14, therefore I'm bad compared to John"

But as a player I like to keep my bad rolls.
The big appeal of rolling is that thrill of a chance at a high score paired with the risk of a low score. If the risk is tempered/negated then I'd rather go with standard array for a more normalized starting point.
I understand not everyone has fun with low score, so I don't enforce MY fun on them and choose to allow them their rerolls.

Current game I rolled really well on character creation. As we are playing with some new-to-d&d folk, I requested to my DM to dump a score down to 5 (-3) to ensure the other players will have a thing they can reliably be better then my character at, and we've been leaning into it regularly. Rolled my first -2 last night, good times :smallbiggrin:

[Damon_Tor]

3d6 in order is great fun, with a few things to keep in mind.
1. Picking stats comes first, before race and class. Class/Stat mismatch is largely avoided when you can pick your class to suit your needs.
2. Wide leway given for "race". For example, in one game a player rolled a 5 for his int, and rather than roleplaying an exceptionally stupid humanoid (and all the cringe that so often brings with it) instead he played an exceptionally intelligent dog. Someone else with 4 con was a pixie, and the low heath is justified by being the size of a sparrow rather being sickly or something. The sidekick rules can be very helpful for this, but not necessary.
3. Acceptance of terribly rolled characters as this week's "red shirt". Hilarious deaths can be fun, and truly expendable characters can be very useful, especially if the DM provides ample opportunities for the red shirts to "shine" in their gods-given role. I've always felt that this is the actual purpose of the "try and die" traps which littered tons of dungeons early in the game: unwanted character disposal. Of course you have to make sure all your players are on board with this sort of thing.

[AvvyR]

I think the biggest concern with stat generation is a level playing field across the party. Maybe some of you are cool being the 18 PBE sidekick to the 39 PBE demigod sitting next to you, but most people will find being an extra affects their enjoyment. Most of the time I see bad Stat characters end up being suicidal fodder so the player can reroll with something fun.

Rolling an 18 and having a starting 20 messes with book balance, but if everyone is equal, it's simple to adjust challenges appropriately. It's much harder to create something challenging for Samantha 3-18s that doesn't crush Johnny Max13 into dust. Characters with higher starting stats have more mechanical power earlier and therefore longer, as well as free ASIs to take additional feats without opportunity cost, granting them better versatility, utility, and roleplay options as well.

For this reason, I heavily support standard array and Point buy. Rolling can be fine, but if you're going to roll, make it so everyone ends at the same level.

[Kane0]

I think the biggest concern with stat generation is a level playing field across the party. Maybe some of you are cool being the 18 PBE sidekick to the 39 PBE demigod sitting next to you, but most people will find being an extra affects their enjoyment. Most of the time I see bad Stat characters end up being suicidal fodder so the player can reroll with something fun.

Rolling an 18 and having a starting 20 messes with book balance, but if everyone is equal, it's simple to adjust challenges appropriately. It's much harder to create something challenging for Samantha 3-18s that doesn't crush Johnny Max13 into dust. Characters with higher starting stats have more mechanical power earlier and therefore longer, as well as free ASIs to take additional feats without opportunity cost, granting them better versatility, utility, and roleplay options as well.

For this reason, I heavily support standard array and Point buy. Rolling can be fine, but if you're going to roll, make it so everyone ends at the same level.

Instead of every player rolling their own stats, everybody rolls to make the one array they share.

Abby rolls 4d6b3 = 11
Samantha rolls 4d6b3 = 14
Johnny rolls 4d6b3 = 17
Gus rolls 4d6b3 = 15
Tony rolls 4d6b3 = 16
The DM rolls the final 4d6b3 = 14

Every player makes a PC with stats of 17, 16, 15, 14, 14, 11. That array is also scribbled down and saved for any replacement characters too.

[Theodoxus]

I let my players pick their stats.

The few times they've wanted to be random, we've either rolled stats separately (creating a disparity of power) or everyone rolled a set and the group picked the array they wanted to use (though I have that one player who just HAS to be contrarian and picks a different set).

But I prefer the pick your stat method, as it lets them play the character they envision rather than a gimpy (PB) version, or worse, a randomly rolled one that never fits.

I also have a rule, that if someone picks all 18s, then everyone starts with all 18s - even the guy that likes a low stat for better "RP". That alone tends to get the table to not run all 18s...


Instead of every player rolling their own stats, everybody rolls to make the one array they share.

Abby rolls 4d6b3 = 11
Samantha rolls 4d6b3 = 14
Johnny rolls 4d6b3 = 17
Gus rolls 4d6b3 = 15
Tony rolls 4d6b3 = 16
The DM rolls the final 4d6b3 = 14

Every player makes a PC with stats of 17, 16, 15, 14, 14, 11. That array is also scribbled down and saved for any replacement characters too.

I tried this... we ended up rolling like 15 sets, because two of my players are notorious for not rolling above an 11 most of the time (in the 'everyone rolls an array' scenario, they roll, but they've never had a "winning" array that was chosen.) The table eventually decided to chuck the idea - but on the whole, I'm not against it.

[rlc]

Somebody on this forum a few years ago suggested1d8+7

[Theodoxus]

Somebody on this forum a few years ago suggested1d8+7

I know I did - though I'd be shocked if I was the only one... the pushback I got was that it didn't generate a curve... so you were just as likely to get a string of 8s,9s and 10s as 13s,14s and 15s.

I'd use it though, if I were stuck with max 15 pre-race ASIs...

[Tanarii]

I've always felt that this is the actual purpose of the "try and die" traps which littered tons of dungeons early in the game: unwanted character disposal. Of course you have to make sure all your players are on board with this sort of thing.
Like Indy in the last crusade ... and everyone else gets to play be the porters.

This probably worked better when each player was expected to play more than one PC at the same time, in the form of henchmen.

[heavyfuel]

I do it because I don't want my player to feel like their stats are holding them back compared to others in the group (it's an illusion, but a firmly cemented one).

How is being held back by poor stats an illusion? :smallconfused:

A Rogue with 8s across the board compared to a Rogue with 16s all over. Rogue 1 has half the HP of Rogue 2, and effectively disadvantage on every roll compared to Rogue 2.

That's not an illusion, that's math.

[Kane0]

How is being held back by poor stats an illusion? :smallconfused:

A Rogue with 8s across the board compared to a Rogue with 16s all over. Rogue 1 has half the HP of Rogue 2, and effectively disadvantage on every roll compared to Rogue 2.

That's not an illusion, that's math.

Higher or lower stats don't stop your character from attempting anything but often stop the players from attempting it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Higher or lower stats don't stop your character from attempting anything but often stop the players from attempting it.

It also stops you from succeeding as often. In some cases it will prevent you from succeeding at all.

These are relatively rare instances (heavyfuels example is entirely accurate, but I doubt it's realistic) however you'd better believe the player is more prone to remember the times where that would have made a difference. They're much more likely to blame the stats than bad luck.

[Kane0]

Oh of course, a +5 chance of success is measurably different to a -1. Was just pointing out the 'illusion' part in terms of attempt rate rather than success rate.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Oh of course, a +5 chance of success is measurably different to a -1. Was just pointing out the 'illusion' part in terms of attempt rate rather than success rate.

So where is the illusion that a player would be less prone to making a decision that they know they're unlikely to make? Ensuring they don't fall into that "It's not even worth attempting threshold" is as easy as ensuring they aren't stuck with a score that might influence that decision making.

It's not really an "illusion" if the problem has an identified cause and solution. In practice (to state again) I'm sure it's not actually all that bad, it just feels a lot worse than it is.

I guess that would be the illusion then, some type of loss aversion, fail by choice rather than chance.

[Tanarii]

Oh of course, a +5 chance of success is measurably different to a -1. Was just pointing out the 'illusion' part in terms of attempt rate rather than success rate.
This is why players don't need to do anything special to "roleplay" low stats. They're automatically making decisions not to do things related to the low stat that might involve checks in the first place. That's the very definition of roleplaying your stat.

[Greywander]

One method I kind of like, though haven't had much opportunity to use, is something I've seen called the Organic Method.

Roll 4d6k3, in order. Or, if you're feeling hardcore, 3d6 in order.
Reroll one ability score and take the higher value.
Switch two scores (if you want to, you can skip this step if everything is where you want it).

This method gives a balance between randomness and player control. Because it's not just the values that are random, but the distribution of those values as well, you can end up with a character that is more "interesting", such as a wizard with high STR or CHA, stats you'd normally dump on a wizard. However, between the reroll and the swap, you still have good chances of ending up with a high value in your primary stat. For example, if you rolled high STR but poor INT and CON, you could reroll your CON and swap STR with INT. The end result is less optimal but still viable, and could open up build combos you wouldn't normally consider due to differing stat dependencies.

Another thing I like about this is that it does kind of give you the feeling of being born with certain natural abilities that you can't really change. You might end up going into a vocation you didn't really want just because you're good at it, or you might lament a weakness you wish you could change but can't. This can help a player get in-character because both of them feel a certain level of frustration at the circumstances of the character's birth. E.g. if you wanted to play a wizard but you only rolled middling INT, you might decide to RP as someone who wanted to be a wizard, but could never pass the entrance exams, or you could RP as someone who cheated their way into wizard school and only half-understands what they're doing. The effect of being dealt a bad hand is felt differently by the player and their character, but both of them still feel the result of those bad rolls, and it helps the player to relate to and understand their character better. (Obviously if the character is actively frustrating to play then you should probably just reroll.)

If you're feeling charitable, you could offer the player a limited number of free rerolls (where they reroll the entire stat array). Once they've expended their free rerolls, if they're still having bad luck you could give them additional rerolls in exchange for taking their current stat array and fleshing it out into a full character who can serve as an NPC at some point. This will give you a stockpile of NPCs you can pull out and use without needing to build them yourself.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Did anyone say, "standard array is what the game is based on" yet? 'Cause I will.

As DM, I can decide that the PCs need more oompff. So during char creation I award an additional ASI or and additional feat, max class gold and class items which can be sold at PHB price.

But you come at me with scores you "rolled" that are well beyond what point buy can get you, and I will smile and say, "Fine, why not take all 18s. You want to do Thunderdome? While you're at it MAX HP at every level. But every single monster you face will also have max HP."

To date, no one has taken me up on this. CR is basically an approximation, so when you have +6 at first level on primary scores, you are punching way above your weight in combat, spell DC, etc.

IMO all these methods are about ways to get better scores. Players like better scores an awful lot. If that's what it takes to get players to play your table, that's what you do. In my world, there are many more players (and potential players) than DMs.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is why players don't need to do anything special to "roleplay" low stats. They're automatically making decisions not to do things related to the low stat that might involve checks in the first place. That's the very definition of roleplaying your stat.

You also don't actually need low stats to roleplay these behaviors, even as a Halfling you can simply choose to be unlucky sometimes.

As an example, my Paladin has a 22 Cha and a 16 Dex. I don't intimidate people, I'd be better at it than almost everyone in the party (only our Fighter has a higher bonus, though its only a single point difference with her Cha score) and I'm actually the second most dexterous member of the party, but I actively avoid making Acrobatics checks because the character isn't intended to be all that flexible. Being a Paladin also lets me emphasize that my success in saving throws related to my Dexterity and Strength are coming from my Aura (a strong Cha) rather than my characters physical abilities.

My scores are all 10+, however I'm still able to emphasize and sometimes overcome my characters weaknesses without having to hamstring my ability in any related mechanics to do so.


IMO all these methods are about ways to get better scores. Players like better scores an awful lot. If that's what it takes to get players to play your table, that's what you do. In my world, there are many more players (and potential players) than DMs.

Probably a good time to roll back to the fact that the goal here is just to avoid overall mediocre stats, aside from those who have recommended "just pick your scores" (I'd personally just go for an improved point buy here) my generating method is probably by far the most generous, and it hasn't produced anything truly outrageous yet.

[Zhorn]

I do it because I don't want my player to feel like their stats are holding them back compared to others in the group (it's an illusion, but a firmly cemented one).How is being held back by poor stats an illusion? :smallconfused:

A Rogue with 8s across the board compared to a Rogue with 16s all over. Rogue 1 has half the HP of Rogue 2, and effectively disadvantage on every roll compared to Rogue 2.

That's not an illusion, that's math.

You've chopped off the first half of that to say something else.

This is not to ensure 'viable characters' since as DM I have the ability to scale the adventure up or down to meet any relative character power level. I do it because I don't want my player to feel like their stats are holding them back compared to others in the group (it's an illusion, but a firmly cemented one).
I'm talking about the illusion of the character not being functional with low stats if I as DM have the ability to set the enemy numbers at whatever I want them to be so that their rolls/success rates are what I want them to be. I can have the enemies attack who I want, evade who I want, gang up on, scatter from, have differing +hit bonuses, AC, Save DCs, save bonuses, etc etc etc.
Granted they are talking about builds rather than stats, but the same concept applies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q3uIPqWtGs
If there are "weaker" characters in my games, I will serve up content that is within their range.
Yes, a disparity in power in the party can feel bad, but who feels bad is going to flip based on who in the group I gear the content towards. I could gear an entire adventure in the kobold warrens, where the low power player is in that sweet spot of mechanical viability, and the high power players are board out of their minds because their extra stats don't translate to better damage when it's all just overkill.

Or use enemies that don't care about the PC's AC or HP (Intellect Devourer)
An enemy that the melee will want to avoid getting in close combat with (Rust Monster, Gelatinous Cube)
Or something that's just flat out outside of range (flying/hovering enemies)
Or specific magical type immunities paired to whatever the caster has favoured

Or I throw puzzles at the party and then NONE of their character stats matter.
Likewise, have 'escape' scenarios where the enemy is too powerful and the goal is just the get away, or have to beat at a narritive level since they cannot with their PC mechanics.

Maybe I mix it up, put in something ideal for the 'powerful' character, and at the same time have other things more suited to the 'weaker' character, but stat-wise the players are using the same target numbers on their dice to beat them.

This is the illusion, that those number determine that their characters are worth a damn compared to the others or even the adventure as a whole when I as DM am picking what numbers even matter.


Higher or lower stats don't stop your character from attempting anything but often stop the players from attempting it.

Oh of course, a +5 chance of success is measurably different to a -1. Was just pointing out the 'illusion' part in terms of attempt rate rather than success rate.
Also good points, not what I was getting at, but highly valued opinions all the same.

[Dark.Revenant]

I'd like to point out that stats actually do matter in a few absolute, tangible ways: Prerequisites for feats and multiclassing, and stats-tied resources. It's no fun to play a Bard who can only use Bardic Inspiration once or twice, rather than three to five times.

[Kane0]

I honestly forget that MCing has a stat requirement. Or maybe it's wilful ignorance.

[Theodoxus]

How is being held back by poor stats an illusion? :smallconfused:

A Rogue with 8s across the board compared to a Rogue with 16s all over. Rogue 1 has half the HP of Rogue 2, and effectively disadvantage on every roll compared to Rogue 2.

That's not an illusion, that's math.

Yeah, but a Rogue with 14s across the board compared to a Rogue with 16's isn't a very wide divide.

13 vs 17?

11 vs 18?

Where does it start to become statistically relevant?

if they're the same level, PB washes out. You're looking at what, 20% increase chance with a +4 difference? (Which I'm sure some math whiz is gonna poopoo because probability and percentages don't work like you'd think.)

1d20 + 5 is only marginally better than 1d20+2. Everyone goes gaga over high stats. Bounded Accuracy makes that mostly moot. Especially if you have more attacks.

It's just like Zhorn said. If your party is busting stats that top out at 14, you lower the AC of your mobs by 1 or 2 points to compensate. If you have wildly disparate stats in the party, you throw a mixed bag at the party. Let the less gifted go after the easy targets - either lower AC or lower saves if the character is a caster. If Gandalf the Dull wants to try casting a spell at Wicked Weezer the Wise, he's more than welcome to try, but he'd be better served with wiping the floor of WWW's mooks while Swifty McSwashbuck hacks away at WWW.

The only time that doesn't work is if the DM is following a module to the 'T'. Then if character stats aren't at least up to the expectation of said module, the players are going to have a sad time. Some people like that challenge... me, that feels like work, and I ain't gettin' paid to play.

[DarknessEternal]

What is the actual problem you're trying to solve by not using point buy?

It can't be the desire for random stats. Everyone cries about wanting that until they refused to suck it up and use bad rolls. People don't really want random stats. They only pretend to want random stats if it means higher stats than points buy.

[Tanarii]

It's just like Zhorn said. If your party is busting stats that top out at 14, you lower the AC of your mobs by 1 or 2 points to compensate. If you have wildly disparate stats in the party, you throw a mixed bag at the party. Let the less gifted go after the easy targets - either lower AC or lower saves if the character is a caster. If Gandalf the Dull wants to try casting a spell at Wicked Weezer the Wise, he's more than welcome to try, but he'd be better served with wiping the floor of WWW's mooks while Swifty McSwashbuck hacks away at WWW.If found out a DM was doing that I'd walk from the table.

What Zhorn said was (in effect) tailor the adventures to challenge the party in different ways. That's not the same, but even then the DM and I would be having a long talk about it.

[JoeJ]

What is the actual problem you're trying to solve by not using point buy?

Reverse that. What's the actual problem you're trying to solve by adding that optional rule?

[Bosh]

I don't mind point buy, array or rolled in order but I hate hate hate hate roll and arrange. It just seems to combine all of the worst aspects of the other systems to no benefit.

[Bosh]

If found out a DM was doing that I'd walk from the table.

What Zhorn said was (in effect) tailor the adventures to challenge the party in different ways. That's not the same, but even then the DM and I would be having a long talk about it.

Yeah it just seems bizarre to have a rule that directly results in unbalanced characters and then put in a whole bunch of effort to make them being unbalanced matter less. It's like pouring a bunch of salt on your meat and then scraping the salt off with a fork. What would be the point of all of that extra effort?

Having unbalanced characters isn't the end of the world (OSR can be fun) and I understand the attraction of balanced characters but combining them seems like putting chocolate on grapefruit...

[KorvinStarmast]

Did anyone say, "standard array is what the game is based on" yet? As I've noted in numerous previous posts, it's bad. They got the six numbers wrong. There's an anydice routine that demonstrates that ...For ability scores, the standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. But the average rolls for 4d6-drop-one are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 — slightly better and, crucially, providing the likely possibility of an 18 to start (with a racial bonus of +2)

If they made it 15 14 13 12 11 9 it would still work and still prevent that 'dreaded' chance for an 18 at level 1. (I mean, the Horror!) :smallyuk:

[Tanarii]

It's like pouring a bunch of salt on your meat and then scraping the salt off with a fork. What would be the point of all of that extra effort?

Having unbalanced characters isn't the end of the world (OSR can be fun) and I understand the attraction of balanced characters but combining them seems like putting chocolate on grapefruit...I commend your mastery of the entertaining analogy. :smallbiggrin:


If they made it 15 14 13 12 11 9 it would still work and still prevent that 'dreaded' chance for an 18 at level 1. (I mean, the Horror!) :smallyuk:It would also make normal humans marginally more attractive.

But the 4d6 array is: 15-2/3 14 13 11-3/4 10-1/2 8-1/2. I think appropriate alternating rounding should be 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 8. Not allowing a 18 at first level for +2 races vs humans is, if you're concerned about balance, pretty crucial.

And if you're not, rolling has a 57% of getting at least one 16 or higher.

[Hael]

3d6 in order systematically gets a bad rap. Most of my fondest memories of ADD came from chars with unusual distributions that I had to make work somehow. The weak and clumsy, but intelligent warrior... The weak willed cleric....

It’s a different sort of optimization process, but one that used to be quite fun if there are were mechanical options available to make it work (in 5e it’s almost impossible bc stats tie into class functions so irrevocably and there are so few degrees of freedom in making a character)

The biggest downside of the current system is that every character is cookie cutter. Every wizard has 20 int and 14-18 con. It’s like the Incredibles line ‘If everyone is special, no one is’. I mean it’s to the point where you could simply remove stats altogether and just assume the standard progression and many people wouldn’t know.

The flip side is that there is no awe at seeing a character with 18 ‘56’ str... no sense of wonder when you meet the equivalent of Hafbor BJornsson in a random pub. No real appreciation of just how astronomically different John Von Neumann was to an average genius.

[cookieface]

I would rather play PB or SA than straight 4d6dl ... leads to too variant stats. (That said, one of the campaigns I'm currently in is 4d6dl, so it's not a big deal to me.)

Personally, I have no issue with starting 18s. It allows for more feats, which are almost always more fun to play with than the purely mechanical ASI. If using PB or SA, I'd prefer an adjusted method that allows for 18s off the bat.

A thought I've had but haven't tried out is doing a point buy of 1d6 + 25 (or similar), with a max buy of 16 for a total of 12 point buy cost. It would allow some small variance, so players that like rolling can still hope for that slightly stronger character.

[DevilMcam]

The method I use is Standard array, but after racials you get an extra +1 to 1 stat (up to 15, or up to 16 if you don't have a 16 already).

This gives everyone the same overal worth of stats, let everyone use any build, and is not too poweruped from the expected low level balance.
I have seen barbarians with 20 str at lvl it is not a pleasant thing to be another melee character in the same party

[Glorthindel]

Frankly, I believe stat generation has had its day; it's an artifact of an older time when stats actually did something, and now is just a bonus collection exercise that could get swallowed into the level process with no great loss.

Personally, I would say to hell with it, and decouple hit bonus, damage bonus, and spell save modifier from stats completely. Just give every starting character +3 to those (since most players will tell you if their main stat is not a 16, the character isn't good enough), and have that increase to +4 at say 4th level, and +5 at 8th (to coincide with the usual ASI increases). That would straight away remove one of the biggest sources of bickering and sourness over what way stats are generated, because lets be honest here, those three things are the main things players care about. Sure, it would be a slight buff to half casters (who might not have started with the full +3 in both core stats under normal stat generation) and casters (but really, a wizard suddenly being able to do a couple of points more damage with a melee weapon is hardly going to break anything), but its hardly a huge one. At that point you can use whatever means of stat generation you like for your stats, since its only effecting skills (could similarly decouple bonus hit points from Constitution, and maybe even AC bonus from Dexterity), so no one is going to get too salty over a poor stat distribution as they know their hit and damage bonuses are protected. Hell, as a nice bonus it would have the side-effect of erasing the issue with Hexblades.

Of course, this is all sacred cow murder, so can't see it ever being a thing.

[Xervous]

I just want to stop for a second to marvel at this thread singing in harmonious agreement on bounded accuracy and the low impact of a small difference in a score. Meanwhile other threads blow up over a +2. Games never change.

[Aett_Thorn]

So far the most fun stat generation I've had is at two different tables. Both were fun for different reasons.

1) Random character generation

We used a modified Darker Dungeons table, and each rolled three random characters, using a stat generation method mentioned above - 4d6d1 in order, reroll one, swap two if desired. Choose which character you want to use as yours, and other two are backup if your first character died. It created some fun and unique characters, some with stats that didn't match the race/class that was rolled, but that was part of the fun. Ended up with a nice mix of characters and some fun backups ready to go!

Was fun because you basically go to see a character develop in front of you, instead of just stats.

2) White Elephant

Each character rolled 4d6d1 in order, and was able to swap two stats. DM rolled two sets of 4d6d1 as well, and kept those secret. Players rolled "initiative". First player up could steal the stat rolls of another player, swapping their own rolls to that player. Players could also swap with one of the DM sets, but didn't get to see them first. Players were allowed to talk and discuss ideas, and it ended up that I think every player got to make something along the lines of what they wanted without too many sacrifices.

Was fun in that it was collaborative, instead of everyone doing it on their own.

[DwarfFighter]

Instead of every player rolling their own stats, everybody rolls to make the one array they share.

Abby rolls 4d6b3 = 11
Samantha rolls 4d6b3 = 14
Johnny rolls 4d6b3 = 17
Gus rolls 4d6b3 = 15
Tony rolls 4d6b3 = 16
The DM rolls the final 4d6b3 = 14

Every player makes a PC with stats of 17, 16, 15, 14, 14, 11. That array is also scribbled down and saved for any replacement characters too.

I like this, but I think personally I'd have the group roll up four or five of the stats, and have the last stats be either low, medium or high to compensate for skewed results on the first rolls. A shared array of stats should make the players happy with how their character compares to the others, but for a game that is supposed to run for a while you will want each character to have a strength and weakness in comparison to the game world.

-DF

[Morty]

Insofar as 5E D&D is concerned, I don't see any point in anything but using the standard array or, if the player wants to fiddle with them a little bit, point buy. Randomness for randomness' sake doesn't appeal to me. If I wanted to have less uniform scores, I think just picking whatever numbers you want and the GM making sure you don't go crazy with it accomplishes everything rolling does, but better. 5E attributes just aren't interesting enough to spend too much time on.

[Frogreaver]

So stat generation is a thorny issue, particularly on this site. We have a lot of ttrpg boomers who argue that "3d6 in order" is the only way to go, and we also have a lot of optimizers who like to assume point buy because it allows you to make definite plans about the path of your character without getting stat-screwed or stat-blessed. Both approaches have their points. Point-buy can lead to a lot of characters feeling very proscribed and generic, while rolling of any sort can lead to massively overpowered or underpowered characters, and certain archetypes (like monk for example) requires a very specific statline to function well.

I'm by no means the most experienced 5e DM on here, but I have run a lot of tables with a lot of different stat generation methods, and I think I've arrived at the best compromise:


Players have to choose which method they want to use before rolling

1. each stat rolled for 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take 27 point buy if its higher.....

OR

2. Two sets of stats rolled via 4d6b3 (highest 3 results from 4d6) with the option to take the higher set.

The possibility of getting truly 'screwed' is basically zero with both options, but with the second you do have a possibility of ending up with really weird statlines that don't fit your archetype. A player who has a very particular race/class combination in mind might not choose option two, whereas someone who's feeling more spontaneous (or doesn't know what they want to play) can have the fun of rolling a WHOLE LOT of dice.

It's very rare for someone to be truly disappointed, but somewhat common for someone to feel pleasantly surprised and IMO that's what a good system should shoot for. Not to say that alternate methods are 'wrong' but I think this does capture some of the best of both worlds.

IMO.
There are 2 primary reasons players like to roll for stats.
1. To gamble on getting an awesome array
2. To have some random variability to build a character around without purposefully having to gimp themselves

There are 2 primary reasons players like a set stat array.
A. They are risk averse
B. It better balances the campaign

Your first method is a compromise that give everybody a bit of all aspects - which is why the first option is very popular. However, it means no one gets exactly what they want except those that like to gamble on an awesome array - as they can gamble away without risking a total gimp of their PC. The players who like a method for a different reason will find this method better at those things than a simple 4d6k3 but it still falls short. For example, a risk averse player rolling low and using point by may still fell like they were forced into a losing gamble. A player concerned about balance will still be bothered by some players being forced to have a +1 or +2 higher in their primary attribute than others. Etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

@KorvinStarmast: do you reroll numbers that are low enough to generate a 19 or higher? Yes, let me find that post for you.
here it is (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/133609/52137)

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

So if you roll 15, 14, and 13, then you also have a 10, an 11, and a 12. If you roll 18, 17, and 16, you also have a 7, an 8, and a 9. When you get a good roll, you also get a bad roll. When you roll average, you get another average roll. You'll always have three odds and three evens.

Ultimately this isn't going to be perfect. Some characters are better with unbalanced stats than others, usually casters who can use magic to make up for physical deficiencies. But it works at making the rolls as a whole feel less unfair.
This sounds like fun

2) White Elephant

Each character rolled 4d6d1 in order, and was able to swap two stats. DM rolled two sets of 4d6d1 as well, and kept those secret. Players rolled "initiative". First player up could steal the stat rolls of another player, swapping their own rolls to that player. Players could also swap with one of the DM sets, but didn't get to see them first. Players were allowed to talk and discuss ideas, and it ended up that I think every player got to make something along the lines of what they wanted without too many sacrifices.

Was fun in that it was collaborative, instead of everyone doing it on their own.
You can also do a 2d6 +6 scheme ...

[Frogreaver]

Insofar as 5E D&D is concerned, I don't see any point in anything but using the standard array or, if the player wants to fiddle with them a little bit, point buy. Randomness for randomness' sake doesn't appeal to me. If I wanted to have less uniform scores, I think just picking whatever numbers you want and the GM making sure you don't go crazy with it accomplishes everything rolling does, but better. 5E attributes just aren't interesting enough to spend too much time on.

The whole point of randomness for randomnesses sake is to have the opportunity to play something you wouldn't have ever actually picked to play. The problem with too much unmitigated randomness is characters that objectively suck can be side by side characters that are objectively great.

In older editions this was mitigated via stat restriction to be a class and via most non-hp scaling being via level and magic items instead of via stat.

[Xervous]

The whole point of randomness for randomnesses sake is to have the opportunity to play something you wouldn't have ever actually picked to play. The problem with too much unmitigated randomness is characters that objectively suck can be side by side characters that are objectively great.

In older editions this was mitigated via stat restriction to be a class and via most non-hp scaling being via level and magic items instead of via stat.

And the magnitude of stats’ impact being far smaller when compared to the benefits of your level.

[Morty]

The whole point of randomness for randomnesses sake is to have the opportunity to play something you wouldn't have ever actually picked to play. The problem with too much unmitigated randomness is characters that objectively suck can be side by side characters that are objectively great.

In older editions this was mitigated via stat restriction to be a class and via most non-hp scaling being via level and magic items instead of via stat.

Which is why, if I wanted to randomly determine my character, I'd rather figure out how to roll for my background, race and class. Classes are easy - unless we involve artificers, there's only 12 of them, so a d12 will work. The other two are trickier.

[x3n0n]

Yes, let me find that post for you.
here it is (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/133609/52137)

Thanks! I really like the motivating principle from that post: "Don't roll for effectiveness. Roll for distribution."

Choosing an odd number for the basis (25 in that post) guarantees 3 odd scores (before racial ASIs), which is also inherently more interesting, IMO.

16 14 13 12 10 9 (the "average 4d6k3 anydice" array) almost matches, as well: 16+9=25, 13+12=25, 14+10=24. That suggests that 25 is roughly the right level of generosity.

I really like this overall. I'd be tempted to offer this to my players:
1. Roll for "split 25" as quoted. If unhappy (seems unlikely), choose:
2a: 16 14 13 12 10 9 (more control, 1 fewer point) or
2b: 29-point buy (even more control, no 16s)

Thanks for sharing!

[Frogreaver]

Which is why, if I wanted to randomly determine my character, I'd rather figure out how to roll for my background, race and class. Classes are easy - unless we involve artificers, there's only 12 of them, so a d12 will work. The other two are trickier.

Most people are willing to play different classes/races/backgrounds. Most aren't willing to play a 13 cha sorcerer or an 8 con rogue. Which means that what you are proposing to randomize doesn't actually serve the same purpose of someone playing something they wouldn't have chosen to.

[SasquatchBrah]

Commenting to share a method I haven't seen posted here. It's similar in theory to the 3x 3d6, subtract from 25 method, but solves the glaring issue that using that method it will actually be quite common to roll pairs of 3/22 all the way up through 6/19.

So, the card draw method. A deck of 18 cards, with values ranged from 1 to 6. For each stat, draw 3 randomly without replacement and add.

You can make the distribution superpowered (numbers add to 76 or 80) or close to point buy (numbers add to 72).

What's the advantage of this method?

1. You will never have glaring power variation within your party. No more disappointed rogues who see that the cleric rolled a 4th stat above 16 and now gets a +4 on all their initiative and stealth.
2. Issue 1 is solved without eliminating variability amongst separate stat rolls (which is the point of random stats in the first place).

[x3n0n]

Commenting to share a method I haven't seen posted here. It's similar in theory to the 3x 3d6, subtract from 25 method, but solves the glaring issue that using that method it will actually be quite common to roll pairs of 3/22 all the way up through 6/19.

So, the card draw method. A deck of 18 cards, with values ranged from 1 to 6. For each stat, draw 3 randomly without replacement and add.

You can make the distribution superpowered (numbers add to 76 or 80) or close to point buy (numbers add to 72).

What's the advantage of this method?

1. You will never have glaring power variation within your party. No more disappointed rogues who see that the cleric rolled a 4th stat above 16 and now gets a +4 on all their initiative and stealth.
2. Issue 1 is solved without eliminating variability amongst separate stat rolls (which is the point of random stats in the first place).

This is really interesting. I wrote up a simulator for it, using a 74-sum deck that corresponds to the likelihood that a given result comes up with 4d6k3:
1 = 1
22 = 4
333 = 9
4444 = 16
5555 = 20
6666 = 24
total 74

Shuffling that deck and dealing out 3-card hands gives an even more middle-focused distribution than I was expecting.

Normal 4d6k3:
3: 1/1296 = 0.0771605
4: 4/1296 = 0.308642
5: 10/1296 = 0.771605
6: 21/1296 = 1.62037
7: 38/1296 = 2.9321
8: 62/1296 = 4.78395
9: 91/1296 = 7.0216
10: 122/1296 = 9.41358
11: 148/1296 = 11.4198
12: 167/1296 = 12.8858
13: 172/1296 = 13.2716
14: 160/1296 = 12.3457
15: 131/1296 = 10.108
16: 94/1296 = 7.25309
17: 54/1296 = 4.16667
18: 21/1296 = 1.62037

7 or less: 6ish%
8-9: 12ish%
10-11: 21ish%
12-13: 26ish%
14-15: 22ish%
16-17: 11.5ish%
18: 1.6%

Shuffled deck dealt into hands of 3, 10000 trials (so 60000 total scores):
5: 76/60000 = 0.126667
6: 441/60000 = 0.735
7: 1022/60000 = 1.70333
8: 2266/60000 = 3.77667
9: 4057/60000 = 6.76167
10: 6034/60000 = 10.0567
11: 7812/60000 = 13.02
12: 8844/60000 = 14.74
13: 9494/60000 = 15.8233
14: 7884/60000 = 13.14
15: 6470/60000 = 10.7833
16: 3539/60000 = 5.89833
17: 1791/60000 = 2.985
18: 270/60000 = 0.45

7 or less: 2.5ish%
8-9: 10.5ish%
10-11: 23ish%
12-13: 30.5ish%
14-15: 24ish%
16-17: 8ish%
18: 0.45%

If part of the excitement is getting 16+, you're not getting much of it with this method.

Contrast the 75-sum "Split 25" with 4d6k3:
* 7.6% of rolls are either 7 or lower, or are 18 (getting you a 18/7 pair).
* 24ish% of rolls are 8,9,16,17, getting you a 17/8 or 16/9 pair
* 43ish% of rolls are 10,11,14,15, getting you a 15/10 or 14/11 pair
* 26ish% or rolls generate a 12/13 pair.

Eyeballing, that's really close to normal 4d6k3, except there are extra 18s and nothing less than 7.
That can actually be tweaked by doing "split 25, split 25, split 24", which would reduce 18s, open up the possibility of 6s, and bring average score down overall, without overly bumping the rate of 12/13s.

I think I've found my new favorite. Thanks again to @KorvinStarmast for finding it.

[TyGuy]

This is really interesting. I wrote up a simulator for it, using a 74-sum deck that corresponds to the likelihood that a given result comes up with 4d6k3:
1 = 1
22 = 4
333 = 9
4444 = 16
5555 = 20
6666 = 24
total 74

Shuffling that deck and dealing out 3-card hands gives an even more middle-focused distribution than I was expecting.

Normal 4d6k3:
3: 1/1296 = 0.0771605
4: 4/1296 = 0.308642
5: 10/1296 = 0.771605
6: 21/1296 = 1.62037
7: 38/1296 = 2.9321
8: 62/1296 = 4.78395
9: 91/1296 = 7.0216
10: 122/1296 = 9.41358
11: 148/1296 = 11.4198
12: 167/1296 = 12.8858
13: 172/1296 = 13.2716
14: 160/1296 = 12.3457
15: 131/1296 = 10.108
16: 94/1296 = 7.25309
17: 54/1296 = 4.16667
18: 21/1296 = 1.62037

7 or less: 6ish%
8-9: 12ish%
10-11: 21ish%
12-13: 26ish%
14-15: 22ish%
16-17: 11.5ish%
18: 1.6%

Shuffled deck dealt into hands of 3, 10000 trials (so 60000 total scores):
5: 76/60000 = 0.126667
6: 441/60000 = 0.735
7: 1022/60000 = 1.70333
8: 2266/60000 = 3.77667
9: 4057/60000 = 6.76167
10: 6034/60000 = 10.0567
11: 7812/60000 = 13.02
12: 8844/60000 = 14.74
13: 9494/60000 = 15.8233
14: 7884/60000 = 13.14
15: 6470/60000 = 10.7833
16: 3539/60000 = 5.89833
17: 1791/60000 = 2.985
18: 270/60000 = 0.45

7 or less: 2.5ish%
8-9: 10.5ish%
10-11: 23ish%
12-13: 30.5ish%
14-15: 24ish%
16-17: 8ish%
18: 0.45%

If part of the excitement is getting 16+, you're not getting much of it with this method.

Contrast the 75-sum "Split 25" with 4d6k3:
* 7.6% of rolls are either 7 or lower, or are 18 (getting you a 18/7 pair).
* 24ish% of rolls are 8,9,16,17, getting you a 17/8 or 16/9 pair
* 43ish% of rolls are 10,11,14,15, getting you a 15/10 or 14/11 pair
* 26ish% or rolls generate a 12/13 pair.

Eyeballing, that's really close to normal 4d6k3, except there are extra 18s and nothing less than 7.
That can actually be tweaked by doing "split 25, split 25, split 24", which would reduce 18s, open up the possibility of 6s, and bring average score down overall, without overly bumping the rate of 12/13s.

I think I've found my new favorite. Thanks again to @KorvinStarmast for finding it.

Wish I still had my spread so I could share but I tried offering two options. There's so many variations that can be done with cards to get the desired effect. I think I did a 75 point deck and 78 point deck, both 2 card hands. But the catch with the 78 point was that it was for an "in order" method in which each card is flipped onto the designated ability score. So it was like rolling in order sort of thing. The safety net was that one of the twelve cards was a joker(wild) that counted as a 6 and could trade places with any one card. This allowed for the wild card to "rescue" an inopportune dump stat like con or to boost a desired stat. Like maybe there was a 9 & 2 on the dex, but the player wanted a rogue, so the wild card could swap with the two for a 15 instead of 11.

[BigRedJedi]

Personal opinion: Rolling for stats sucks, unless you are fully randomizing your character, top-to-bottom, a la Stars Without Numbers, to see what interesting character you will be playing.


When DMing:

Players get the option to choose one or the other of the following:

1.) Standard point buy/array and a half-feat of choice (Variant human gets additional feat as normal).

2.) Heroic Array [16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10]

It's not quite 50/50 in what my players usually choose (slightly more prefer the half-feat), but it's close. No chance for characters to be severely under- or over-powered and flexible enough for variation.

[heavyfuel]

You've chopped off the first half of that to say something else.

Being able to scale the adventure up or down doesn't matter when you have 2 PCs with drastically different power levels.

As an exageration, it's why you can't have a level 20 Druid and a level 1 Ranger in the same party. If you scale the adventure down to the level of the Ranger, the Druid just curbstomps everything. If you scale it enough for the Druid to be challenged, the Ranger is all but useless.

Even on practical terms this is a problem. When you have players with reasonably the same level of system mastery, the one with the highest stats is bound to perform considerably better than the other. Again, this isn't an illusion, it's math.

[Zhorn]

Being able to scale the adventure up or down doesn't matter when you have 2 PCs with drastically different power levels.

As an exageration, it's why you can't have a level 20 Druid and a level 1 Ranger in the same party. If you scale the adventure down to the level of the Ranger, the Druid just curbstomps everything. If you scale it enough for the Druid to be challenged, the Ranger is all but useless.

Even on practical terms this is a problem. When you have players with reasonably the same level of system mastery, the one with the highest stats is bound to perform considerably better than the other. Again, this isn't an illusion, it's math.
heavyfuel, you are still arguing against something other than the point I was making.
I'm talking about the illusion of low stats leading the player to think their low stat character isn't viable for adventuring.
In my initial post I've already said I allow rerolls if one of two conditions exist that would lead to large disparities in stats, so harping on about your extreme edge cases is using a scenario I'm not pushing for.

The illusion isn't "18 being bigger than 8" or any such disparity
The illusion is "A low stat roll means this character is bad and not viable for adventuring"
it's about serving up an adventure that accounts for the what the characters can or cannot do.

Disparities between character power level will always exist, the form it takes will shift game to game, but it'll always be there unless you are handing out exact copies of the same character sheet to all your players, and all the players are clones of each other with the same sets of knowledge, social skills, and tendencies.
But that's also setting up absurd comparison, and such standards are not useful for any of us.

In my earlier examples, I talked about mixing up the types of content I as a DM can serve up to my players.
Regardless of what the party strengths are I tend to do this anyway, cycling through the PCs strong and weak areas, giving them areas to shine AND highlighting areas they are ill equipped for, same for the players themselves, RP is suited for some players more than others, as is tactical combat, or puzzles, or narrative driven problem solving, etc.

The numbers they rolled and assigned to their character sheets can be relevant in some areas, being powerful in one place, viable in another, or detrimental in others, or not relevant at all.
As DM, I'm choosing what I throw at the party. I can throw encounters at them where a low stat character is viable and performs to the same odds as though I made an encounter geared towards a high stat character. If you need to roll a 12+ on a dice to hit before modifiers, that being against an AC of 21 using a +9 modifier or an 11 with a -1 modifier, it's still a 45% success rate in either scenario.

Can the higher stat PC be more effective in those cases? Yes they could, but as saying before I could also set up things where they are less effective for reasons that are not numerical, or use different stats where the disparity between the PCs isn't as extreme, or even in such a way that it it using their own weakness/dump stat area.

[DarknessEternal]

it's about serving up an adventure that accounts for the what the characters can or cannot do.
Why are you so insistent on making a player play a character objectively worse than all the other characters?

[Tanarii]

heavyfuel, you are still arguing against something other than the point I was making.
I'm talking about the illusion of low stats leading the player to think their low stat character isn't viable for adventuring.
In my initial post I've already said I allow rerolls if one of two conditions exist that would lead to large disparities in stats, so harping on about your extreme edge cases is using a scenario I'm not pushing for.
Heads up that was extremely unclear in your OP or your follow up. That reads like a different set of goalposts from your first attempt at clarifying, which was focused heavily on handling different power levels within the adventuring group. In this case you're being upfront that was the goalposts all along, but it totally makes sense for anyone reading your previous posts to have assumed otherwise.

[Zhorn]

Why are you so insistent on making a player play a character objectively worse than all the other characters?
I am not

Heads up that was extremely unclear in your OP or your follow up. That reads like a different set of goalposts from your first attempt at clarifying, which was focused heavily on handling different power levels within the adventuring group. In this case you're being upfront that was the goalposts all along, but it totally makes sense for anyone reading your previous posts to have assumed otherwise.
Sorry, I will try to amend a comment into post23.

[Theodoxus]

Thanks! I really like the motivating principle from that post: "Don't roll for effectiveness. Roll for distribution."

Choosing an odd number for the basis (25 in that post) guarantees 3 odd scores (before racial ASIs), which is also inherently more interesting, IMO.

16 14 13 12 10 9 (the "average 4d6k3 anydice" array) almost matches, as well: 16+9=25, 13+12=25, 14+10=24. That suggests that 25 is roughly the right level of generosity.

I really like this overall. I'd be tempted to offer this to my players:
1. Roll for "split 25" as quoted. If unhappy (seems unlikely), choose:
2a: 16 14 13 12 10 9 (more control, 1 fewer point) or
2b: 29-point buy (even more control, no 16s)

Thanks for sharing!

Why not turn that 10 to an 11, and you have matched perfectly? (...the 4d6 array is: 15-2/3 14 13 11-3/4 10-1/2 8-1/2)

[x3n0n]

Why not turn that 10 to an 11, and you have matched perfectly? (...the 4d6 array is: 15-2/3 14 13 11-3/4 10-1/2 8-1/2)




Good point!

That said, now I'm thinking that I like "split 25, split 25, split 24" (see later post). :) Full "split 25" generates marginally more 18s than seems right to me (and can't generate a 6), so a slight downward hedge feels reasonable.

[strangebloke]

That's stat inflation.

IMO the best is the PHB way: choose before hand standard array or roll (or PB if available). And if you choose to roll you're stuck with it.

Btw 5000 hours is impressive. At 16 hours (4 sessions) per week that's 5-1/2 years.

I mean, 4d6d1 has been the standard since AD&D ...

5000 hours sounds like a lot, and it is... but I've been playing for about 8 out of the last 10 years with something like 1-3 campaigns a week pretty regularly. Granted that part of this estimate is based off roll20 hours played which is inflated to some degree (it includes my prep time for example) but even so I'd guess that my hours played is at least 3000.

As to stat inflation? Who cares? Not me, that's for sure. High stats are fun and make players feel more liberated to play weird concepts. For most classes they only really need 1 truly high stat, and only receive tangible benefits from at most three stats. Anything beyond that exists for flavor.

With that said I do care about stat inflation past a certain point. My primary goal is variety, and overly high stats across the board can get away with that. Allowing people to pick from 6 arrays, or 12 arrays, is too much for me.


Did anyone say, "standard array is what the game is based on" yet? 'Cause I will.

As DM, I can decide that the PCs need more oompff. So during char creation I award an additional ASI or and additional feat, max class gold and class items which can be sold at PHB price.

But you come at me with scores you "rolled" that are well beyond what point buy can get you, and I will smile and say, "Fine, why not take all 18s. You want to do Thunderdome? While you're at it MAX HP at every level. But every single monster you face will also have max HP."

To date, no one has taken me up on this. CR is basically an approximation, so when you have +6 at first level on primary scores, you are punching way above your weight in combat, spell DC, etc.

IMO all these methods are about ways to get better scores. Players like better scores an awful lot. If that's what it takes to get players to play your table, that's what you do. In my world, there are many more players (and potential players) than DMs.
Wow, sounds like you're cultivating an adversarial relationship with your players based around distrust. :smalltongue:

Rolls for stats should never be done in private, full stop. Use roll20 or even discord if you can't meet in person its not that hard. How are people still not doing this in the year of our lord 2021?

And... yeah? I don't mind giving players high level scores because it doesn't matter that much. Having 'godly' stats where you have an 18 and 3 16s (something that's still hilariously unlikely under my method) is still only really going to give you a marginal buff to damage and HP at best in most classes. Removing overpowered, overcentralizing options like GWM and SS are far more important steps to take toward keeping the power level of a party to reasonable baseline.

If you make me choose between a DEX 16 fighter with SS and a DEX 20 without, we all know which I'm picking.

I honestly forget that MCing has a stat requirement. Or maybe it's wilful ignorance.
same, tbh.

The worst part is how Monk has double the requirements for no apparent reason.

What is the actual problem you're trying to solve by not using point buy?

It can't be the desire for random stats. Everyone cries about wanting that until they refused to suck it up and use bad rolls. People don't really want random stats. They only pretend to want random stats if it means higher stats than points buy.
this isn't accurate at all, lol. I played a trash paladin in a friends campaign, who had zero scores over 14 before racials. I rolled up a tiefling paladin who was 5'1" and had 12 STR and 7 DEX, his only redeeming feature being a high CHA.

And it was great! Everyone had fun making jokes about my shrimpy, short-man-complex conquest paladin. I had fun too.

Newer players obsess over stats, older players know that there are ways of making an effective character without stats, and that if a character is weak and dies... well you get to roll up a new character. That's the point of the approach. If you want to get a chance at high stats but still want to play safe, you can. If you wan to embrace the randomness, you can do that as well.


If they made it 15 14 13 12 11 9 it would still work and still prevent that 'dreaded' chance for an 18 at level 1. (I mean, the Horror!) :smallyuk:

IMO, allowing people to point buy up to 16 is a must, otherwise a +1 is basically indistinguishable from a +2 for most classes and that decision has less nuance.

[DarknessEternal]

Newer players obsess over stats, older players know that there are ways of making an effective character without stats, and that if a character is weak and dies... well you get to roll up a new character. That's the point of the approach. If you want to get a chance at high stats but still want to play safe, you can. If you wan to embrace the randomness, you can do that as well.


If the death of a PC has no consequences, why are you even playing this game? Why not crush your head with a big rock 20 seconds into the first game?

[ProsecutorGodot]

If the death of a PC has no consequences, why are you even playing this game? Why not crush your head with a big rock 20 seconds into the first game?

Ironically the cause of our first TPK about 30 minutes into Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Nobody in our party had a reliable ranged attack and we learned to fear flying Kobolds.

I think the point being made is that this is meant to let players who might have their enjoyment hindered by poor stats avoid it and those who are more than willing to play around it also enjoy it. I think the example given about the shortstack Tiefling communicated that point, you can enjoy a character even if they're very likely to die an early death.

[strangebloke]

If the death of a PC has no consequences, why are you even playing this game? Why not crush your head with a big rock 20 seconds into the first game?

The death/retirement of a PC has consequences, but not all of them are bad. A tense battle, a fitting send-off, then getting to make up a new character after... These are things that are painful in the moment but after you get through it it ends up being something really memorable. And if the only reason that your PC truly died is that they had 'bad stats' (and to be honest, its 100% not this, its more likely bad tactics or an unfair encounter) you can't really get too upset about it, right?

Like I said, I do not mind playing low-statted characters at all. It's an interesting challenge. The only reason I am generous with stats as a DM is because I know from experience that players perceive themselves as being capable of more things if you give them a character that's generously statted.

[SLOTHRPG95]

What is the actual problem you're trying to solve by not using point buy?

It can't be the desire for random stats. Everyone cries about wanting that until they refused to suck it up and use bad rolls. People don't really want random stats. They only pretend to want random stats if it means higher stats than points buy.

I can't answer for others, but as for me I like rolling in order to "discover" my character. I have enough potential ideas for basically any class that I can happily play stats more suited to any one of them. I guess this is more of a problem if you go in really, really wanting to play a Paladin and then your only stat above an 11 is your Wisdom, but I find rolling (in order) is freeing. It gives me a more constrained design space to play around in, where otherwise I'd be facing a surfeit of choice and have to pick one out of dozens of half-baked character ideas that I might have floating about in my head.


Why are you so insistent on making a player play a character objectively worse than all the other characters?

Not directed at me, but in response to the previous comment I rolled 3d6 in order and got Str 7 Dex 5 Con 10 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 10. The first thing that popped to mind was a venerable half-elven acolyte to a deity of viticulture. They never expected to be blessed with true divine power, but recently they've seen their prayers made manifest. Now they're off to find out why they've been chosen, and if it has anything to do with the rumors of ogres sighted to the east....

Mechanically, a half-elven acolyte nature cleric, w/ Str and Dex bumped by one, and Cha joining Int/Wis at 12. Could wear ring mail/shield for AC 16 out the gate, or heavier armor if willing to take the speed penalty (and feel sore the next day). Definitely not the most powerful character, but one that I'm more interested in playing the longer that I type out this post. Could you make a similar character with Str 10 Dex 8 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 15 Cha 13 (pre-racial)? Yes, although I think you might lose some of the "why me?" angle. Either way, the array/point buy definitely isn't necessary for making a fun and viable character.

[Morty]

Most people are willing to play different classes/races/backgrounds. Most aren't willing to play a 13 cha sorcerer or an 8 con rogue. Which means that what you are proposing to randomize doesn't actually serve the same purpose of someone playing something they wouldn't have chosen to.

I guess I just don't see any point in playing a character who is bad at things they're supposed to be good at. I'll gladly play a character who is just weak, period - in a game like Shadow of the Demon Lord, where starting from the rock bottom is the point. But playing a character in D&D with low scores in important attributes just feels like the regular D&D experience, only less fun for no particular reason.

[Chaosmancer]

As DM, I'm choosing what I throw at the party. I can throw encounters at them where a low stat character is viable and performs to the same odds as though I made an encounter geared towards a high stat character. If you need to roll a 12+ on a dice to hit before modifiers, that being against an AC of 21 using a +9 modifier or an 11 with a -1 modifier, it's still a 45% success rate in either scenario.

Can the higher stat PC be more effective in those cases? Yes they could, but as saying before I could also set up things where they are less effective for reasons that are not numerical, or use different stats where the disparity between the PCs isn't as extreme, or even in such a way that it it using their own weakness/dump stat area.


But here is the problem Zhorn. Let us say that you set it up so that the player who is rolling a -1 has a 45% chance of hitting, because the AC is 11. Then, the playing with the +9 to hit basically never misses. They have a 95% accuracy rate. You have made the -1 "effective" but they are also still struggling to hit the target that the other player is bored rolling for, because they only miss on a 1.

And being the guy who is struggling to hit while your ally is bored with never missing, isn't fun. It makes it clear that you two shouldn't be going after the same targets.

And you acknowledge this, but then start on a second layer of adjustments. You will start forcing the players to use stats that don't have that disparity, making the powerful character's strengths pointless, you will force them to be less effective in other ways, you will constantly target their weaknesses while the other character is all weaknesses and won't get any special attention.

In other words, you will make life harder and harder for the person who rolled well, to make the person who rolled poorly not feel like a burden, either frustrating the person who rolled well because "oh look, another mind flayer to target my intelligence, how shocking" gets aggravating, or they will feel like the burden, because if they didn't roll well, the party wouldn't be constantly besieged by these challenges.

Or, perhaps you will do the other thing I see suggested sometimes, which is give the lower stat player better and cooler magic items... which also sucks. Because seeing your friend get cool toys and you get less cool toys sucks, and knowing that you got an item specifically to catch up to your buddy, who doesn't need a +3 longsword to be that effective, makes it less cool to have gotten a +3 longsword.


And all of this can be avoided.... by simply working to prevent major disparities. If the PCs are roughly balanced, then none of this is a concern.

[Tanarii]

The downside to roll in order is you'll end up playing a lot of SAD classes and builds, and far less Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Monks, Bladelocks, Valor Bards, Strangers, Martial Clerics. And you'll get a lot of weird combos that don't really fit any build like high Str/Dex with low Con, or high any 2 mental stats. Oh, and so many Wizards, because the only high stat is Int.

[strangebloke]

The downside to roll in order is you'll end up playing a lot of SAD classes and builds, and far less Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Monks, Bladelocks, Valor Bards, Strangers, Martial Clerics. And you'll get a lot of weird combos that don't really fit any build like high Str/Dex with low Con, or high any 2 mental stats. Oh, and so many Wizards, because the only high stat is Int.

To be fair, Barbarian, Ranger, and Bladelock can all be run pretty SAD if you want to. Barbarians really don't need DEX or even CON to do their thing, they're always going to be super tanky. Rangers don't actually need WIS for basically any of their spell lists. And Bladelocks can just go hexblade if they have good CHA.

But yeah, your point is fair. Its why I run my stat generation technique the way I do. Some character concepts can survive randomness much bette than others.

[Zhorn]

@Chaosmancer
Because we should only ever serve up content for high stat play, and only targeting to party strengths at all times, got it.:smallwink:
I kid. I know that's not what you are saying. There's a lot more to this discussion than just "all players should have high stats all the time", but it's harder to have that discussion when all responses to all other options is just "make the numbers big", or the accusations keep falling back to "Zhorn's bad for forcing this stat disparity in his games"

If you think that's what I do, please allow me to direct you back to my first post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628588-Stat-Generation-(the-best-solution-I-ve-found-after-5000-hours-of-DM-play)&p=24970056#post24970056) in this thread where you can read what rolling safety net I DO have in place.
Those methods though are either not good enough for some, or have just been skipped over entirely in pursuit of heavyfuel's misinterpretation of my illusion comment being about player-to-player when I'm talking about perceptions and player-to-encounter and what I can do as a DM to make a player's stats mean whatever I want them to mean.
Again, my 'illusion' comment is about the perception of "a low stat character cannot be viable in adventuring", since there is not enforced rule on what target numbers a DM must throw at the party.
Did I phrase it poorly? Maybe. I know what I meant so it all made sense to my reading, but on Tanarii's polite suggestion I've amended a clarification. Either I've failed at that or the ball is already rolling and there no stopping it now.

My posts have been covering responses I do for creating encounters for my players, of which I do regardless of the overall stats of the party. High or low, I rotate through their strengths and weaknesses to give each member chance to shine, chances to be challenged, and have situations that target their soft spots. Just as I rotate through the character's backstories to give each player a turn on stage, a turn at being a support, and occasionally a seat off stage for them to opt to faf about with adlibbed shenanigans if they don't want to work their way into the current narrative.
This isn't a "second layer of adjustments" as you phrase it, Chaosmancer, it is literally just how I run my games.

I find this approach has worked for me when party members have stat disparities, so I shared them as they were on topic for the direction of the thread. There's no 'one stat is king' or 'one size fits all' in my games. Everyone could have maxed stats and optimized builds and they will have encounters they are great at, and ones that they are not great at. The whole party could have low stats and be poorly optimized, they will have stuff that even they are good at alongside the stuff they struggle with. Mixed groups don't change that. Depending on the players, the classes they've picked, and the rolls they've made, it'll shift about what type of experience they'll have for each encounter, but I'll make sure they get both ends of the scale and stuff in-between where I can. because that's what we can do as DMs, the number are not set in stone, they can go up and down, or disappear entirely. Narrative solutions exist for the players also, it doesn't require a dice roll to pour oil on the ground or light it, but it'll still deal 5 damage without a save to anyone entering/standing in it.

In the second post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628588-Stat-Generation-(the-best-solution-I-ve-found-after-5000-hours-of-DM-play)/page2&p=24970323#post24970323) I made I've acknowledged that this mathematical disparity does exist, but that clearly wasn't enough since the misunderstanding was continued to be pushed with the ridiculousness of a level 20 druid in a party with a level 1 ranger (I don't know where that came from, heavyfuel is much better poster than that).

At this point I'm tempted to just throw in the purple text since my clarifications are just being overlooked in favour of that other interpretation, or assumptions of things I don't do nor advocate for.

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer
Because we should only ever serve up content for high stat play, and only targeting to party strengths at all times, got it.:smallwink:
I kid. I know that's not what you are saying. There's a lot more to this discussion than just "all players should have high stats all the time", but it's harder to have that discussion when all responses to all other options is just "make the numbers big", or the accusations keep falling back to "Zhorn's bad for forcing this stat disparity in his games"

If you think that's what I do, please allow me to direct you back to my first post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628588-Stat-Generation-(the-best-solution-I-ve-found-after-5000-hours-of-DM-play)&p=24970056#post24970056) in this thread where you can read what rolling safety net I DO have in place.
Those methods though are either not good enough for some, or have just been skipped over entirely in pursuit of heavyfuel's misinterpretation of my illusion comment being about player-to-player when I'm talking about perceptions and player-to-encounter and what I can do as a DM to make a player's stats mean whatever I want them to mean.
Again, my 'illusion' comment is about the perception of "a low stat character cannot be viable in adventuring", since there is not enforced rule on what target numbers a DM must throw at the party.
Did I phrase it poorly? Maybe. I know what I meant so it all made sense to my reading, but on Tanarii's polite suggestion I've amended a clarification. Either I've failed at that or the ball is already rolling and there no stopping it now.

My posts have been covering responses I do for creating encounters for my players, of which I do regardless of the overall stats of the party. High or low, I rotate through their strengths and weaknesses to give each member chance to shine, chances to be challenged, and have situations that target their soft spots. Just as I rotate through the character's backstories to give each player a turn on stage, a turn at being a support, and occasionally a seat off stage for them to opt to faf about with adlibbed shenanigans if they don't want to work their way into the current narrative.
This isn't a "second layer of adjustments" as you phrase it, Chaosmancer, it is literally just how I run my games.

I find this approach has worked for me when party members have stat disparities, so I shared them as they were on topic for the direction of the thread. There's no 'one stat is king' or 'one size fits all' in my games. Everyone could have maxed stats and optimized builds and they will have encounters they are great at, and ones that they are not great at. The whole party could have low stats and be poorly optimized, they will have stuff that even they are good at alongside the stuff they struggle with. Mixed groups don't change that. Depending on the players, the classes they've picked, and the rolls they've made, it'll shift about what type of experience they'll have for each encounter, but I'll make sure they get both ends of the scale and stuff in-between where I can. because that's what we can do as DMs, the number are not set in stone, they can go up and down, or disappear entirely. Narrative solutions exist for the players also, it doesn't require a dice roll to pour oil on the ground or light it, but it'll still deal 5 damage without a save to anyone entering/standing in it.

In the second post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628588-Stat-Generation-(the-best-solution-I-ve-found-after-5000-hours-of-DM-play)/page2&p=24970323#post24970323) I made I've acknowledged that this mathematical disparity does exist, but that clearly wasn't enough since the misunderstanding was continued to be pushed with the ridiculousness of a level 20 druid in a party with a level 1 ranger (I don't know where that came from, heavyfuel is much better poster than that).

At this point I'm tempted to just throw in the purple text since my clarifications are just being overlooked in favour of that other interpretation, or assumptions of things I don't do nor advocate for.



I think a lot of this is miscommunication and baggage, but there is also... a frustrating issue, that may not be what you want or intend, but it is something you brushed up against. And I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it exactly, or what terms to use, but...


There is a tendency in games and in discussions to see a problem and then assume "but the DM can fix that by changing the game". And, to an extent, this is a good thing. Games should be adjusted to maximize fun, but what that fun is is going to change group by group and even person by person. So, out first layer here is that expecting the DM to solve the problem, is putting a pot more stress on the DM. I think this was best expressed by the Dungeon Dudes on a video about broken magic item combos. Can you as a DM adjust to make these items less unbalancing? Yes. But it is a lot more work, and why are you making more work for yourself by creating a situation that spawns a problem and then working to fix the problem you created.


And, no matter how much people may want to deny it, or cover it up with anecdotes or something else, rolling dice to produce stats has a potential to create problems. And which method you use can decide how likely that is. 3d6 down the line is supposedly "great" for some people, because it creates much more random characters, but to my eye, it also creates many more problems and is probably the "worst" for the problems I am talking about. Because, whether everyone has 12's or everyone has 20's, that isn't a major concern. But when the disparity is to great, that has a potential to cause problems.

And I know, I know, some people love it. They love taking a character whose highest stat is a 6 and seeing how ridiculously they can die, or running them into some ragged super-character who is amazing at the table and everyone has loved those stories for 20 years. I get it. But not everyone finds that fun, and it can cause issues and tensions at the table. And a DM has to work a lot harder to balance "Poor Tom" with "Super Jones" who rolled two 18's and his lowest stat is a 14. And maybe everyone finds a way to have fun at that table, but I just see a constant struggle ripping the game out at the middle.

And this isn't only a stat thing that I'm thinking about. I've seen people legitimately argue that spells like Water Breathing are a waste of resources, because if you need to breathe underwater, the DM will provide you a way, and if you have the ability, the DM will force you to use it and use up a resource your wouldn't otherwise expend. And, no, I'm not saying this is you as a DM, or anyone else, and I don't need a dozen people telling me "well, at my table I would never..." sure, whatever, not the point. The point is that the thought gets out there, and the more you have to adjust and massage and change, the more it creeps in.

Does this mean you should never change anything? Of course not. That would be just as bad.


But why make the extra work? And stat generation is early, fundamental, and for a lot of us the least interesting thing you can say about our character. A wizard with a 16, 18 or even 20 intelligence isn't more interesting. "AHA!" I hear people saying "THAT is exactly why a wizard with a 6 intelligence is-" No, it isn't. And another issue I have are these people who constantly humble brag, "oh, well I find that as a real roleplayinger, a character with low stats is such a challenge to my creativity." Good for you smug strawman, but I could care less about figuring out how to roll a 16 when I have a -3, that is just system mastery and it isn't really all that fun. It is just either doing what I want to do anyways (solve the issue without rolling) or stacking buffs all the time, which then... why aren't we just stacking buffs all the time. You know once I had my players figure out that they could use the Help Action to get advantage on a skill, they always used the Help Action all the time, they would fight for the chance to use it on every single skill, because constant advantage is great.


And no, it isn't that I hate dice and I should find a diceless story system either, faceless smug strawman, I like DnD. I just find that the best parts are usually not when we are caring about the dice and if we have a big enough modifier. And while some people will say that just means we need to step up and stop caring about failure (followed then by faceless smug strawman telling us that they never felt the need to always win and get our participation trophy) what we are really trying to do is get the math to vanish a little more into the background. We want our stats high enough, as a group, that our success and failure hinges more on the ideas and the story, and less on whether we were able to get a 16 or an 8 for our modifier.




I know this is all meandering and all over the place, but stats are fundamental. Everything else in the game flows from these six numbers, and we want to succeed, because winning is fun and we want to win because of our skill or ideas, not because we have some exploit that gives us a high enough bonus. But, we also know, we can't come up with a clever plan every single fight. So it is nice to have those decent stats to fall back on.

And so we want to reduce variance. It isn't boring to us, it just prevents potential problems, and lets us make up new and more interesting problems then whether "Poor Tom" should suicide by goblin and play his cousin Tam.

[Sandeman]

In my rpg group we have long since abandoned rolling for stats. We only ever do point buy.
People so dislike the unevitable perceived inequality of rolling stats that some players would refuse to even join the campaign if we went with that.

[strangebloke]

In my rpg group we have long since abandoned rolling for stats. We only ever do point buy.
People so dislike the unevitable perceived inequality of rolling stats that some players would refuse to even join the campaign if we went with that.

This attitude is troubling to me but I can't say its wrong. I just feel its too competitive of an outlook.

[JNAProductions]

This attitude is troubling to me but I can't say its wrong. I just feel its too competitive of an outlook.

It's not necessarily competitive. If your array is 12 10 8 7 6 6, and the rest of the party are 18 16 14 12 10 8, you'll feel like the load. You'll drag them down. There's a good chance it won't make sense, in-character, to even bring your PC along with, given how weak they are.
Likewise, if the rest of the party has a garbage array, and you're rocking the super one, you don't want to feel you overshadow everyone else. That's less of an issue, in my opinion, but it's still there.

I think you're reading too much into it-to me, that seems more a desire for balance than a need to one up each other.

And hell, even if they do treat it as a competition, if they're all having fun, go nuts. I wouldn't enjoy that table, but if they do, that's fine.

[Xervous]

I find it somewhat ironic that in spite of my strong appreciation for point buy the one thing I’d love a chance to play is a pre 3e game with a stable of characters that I can juggle, acquire and lose while dipping into various personalities.

Though maybe that’s just because a rotating stable erodes the permanence of bad rolls.

[x3n0n]

Pros for zero-variance methods (point buy, standard array, and similar):
* guarantee ability score balance for all players at a table
* generally give a lot of control to the player to build to a specific character concept (especially when combined with things like v.human, Tasha's Custom Lineage, and Tasha's Customizing Your Origin)
* allow character building away from the table (pro and con)
* PHB point buy in particular allows sharing of repeatable "builds" across tables (like in Adventurer's League) and in discussion boards like this
* PHB point buy helps keep characters within the expected power band for published adventures

Cons for point-buy methods, especially PHB 27-point:
* proliferation of exact or near-exact repeated "builds" (often mentioned as a point of frustration with other players' characters, especially in AL)
* "best" options for a given race/class are often "obvious" and "boring" to experienced players
* without Customizing Your Origin or similar, some race/class combos are "unplayable" (i.e. can't have optimally-aligned stat mods)
* scores in the 8-15 bounds often require many ASIs to reach career targets for main stats, "preventing" use of feats outside the typical "power" cluster


Pros for rolling:
* variation in relevant ability scores (even +1/-1) introduces a LOT of build variability for experienced players, especially at feat-enabled tables, "organically" suggesting unusual combinations
* particularly high scores (16-18 pre-racial) enable unusual race/class combos without resorting to Customizing Your Origin
* particularly low scores force characters to rely on party members to cover weaknesses, ensuring some amount of teamwork
* require character building to happen with DM involvement (pro and con)

Cons for rolling:
* without safeguards, ability-score-driven effectiveness can vary widely across a party, prevent reasonable cross-table character movement, and drift from what published material expects
* a particular set of rolled stats may not support the player's desired character concept
* a player's experiences with a rolled-stats character may not always translate into a lesson that other players can usefully adopt for superficially-similar characters


Am I missing major pros or cons on either side?
(I'm aware that there are rolling methods intended to mitigate the downsides of rolling.)


Following the discussion here, the most vocal proponents for rolling seem to be those who:
* have played a LOT of characters or DMed a LOT (and thus have seen and/or played many of the popular concepts)
* are willing to treat a given character as "expendable"
* don't particularly like to exchange detailed character builds

Given the above, that doesn't seem particularly surprising.

[JoeJ]

If you want both randomness and equality, have everybody use the standard array but roll randomly to see which number goes with which ability score. Um... you might want to do that before you choose your class, though.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

If you want both randomness and equality, have everybody use the standard array but roll randomly to see which number goes with which ability score. Um... you might want to do that before you choose your class, though.

I'd love to have a system that was basically equitable, but allowed for some variation based on chance, more to flavor the character. We used to use a 'flavor' table that gave each character something unique. They would have been equivalent in power to a feat or 1/2 feat at the most. With 5e I'm finding it tough support any system that gives characters more than point buy at creation though, even more so with recent books. One thing I think my players could live with is point buy with random races. With some sort of feat or flavor bonus it would probably balance out and add an element of fun and chance.

[strangebloke]

Pros for zero-variance methods (point buy, standard array, and similar):
* guarantee ability score balance for all players at a table
* generally give a lot of control to the player to build to a specific character concept (especially when combined with things like v.human, Tasha's Custom Lineage, and Tasha's Customizing Your Origin)
* allow character building away from the table (pro and con)
* PHB point buy in particular allows sharing of repeatable "builds" across tables (like in Adventurer's League) and in discussion boards like this
* PHB point buy helps keep characters within the expected power band for published adventures

Cons for point-buy methods, especially PHB 27-point:
* proliferation of exact or near-exact repeated "builds" (often mentioned as a point of frustration with other players' characters, especially in AL)
* "best" options for a given race/class are often "obvious" and "boring" to experienced players
* without Customizing Your Origin or similar, some race/class combos are "unplayable" (i.e. can't have optimally-aligned stat mods)
* scores in the 8-15 bounds often require many ASIs to reach career targets for main stats, "preventing" use of feats outside the typical "power" cluster


Pros for rolling:
* variation in relevant ability scores (even +1/-1) introduces a LOT of build variability for experienced players, especially at feat-enabled tables, "organically" suggesting unusual combinations
* particularly high scores (16-18 pre-racial) enable unusual race/class combos without resorting to Customizing Your Origin
* particularly low scores force characters to rely on party members to cover weaknesses, ensuring some amount of teamwork
* require character building to happen with DM involvement (pro and con)

Cons for rolling:
* without safeguards, ability-score-driven effectiveness can vary widely across a party, prevent reasonable cross-table character movement, and drift from what published material expects
* a particular set of rolled stats may not support the player's desired character concept
* a player's experiences with a rolled-stats character may not always translate into a lesson that other players can usefully adopt for superficially-similar characters


Am I missing major pros or cons on either side?
(I'm aware that there are rolling methods intended to mitigate the downsides of rolling.)


Following the discussion here, the most vocal proponents for rolling seem to be those who:
* have played a LOT of characters or DMed a LOT (and thus have seen and/or played many of the popular concepts)
* are willing to treat a given character as "expendable"
* don't particularly like to exchange detailed character builds

Given the above, that doesn't seem particularly surprising.
This is a pretty fair summation and at the end of the day its really what I'm trying to resolve. There is a purely random method available for longtime players, and a random method with a safety net for players who are less spontaneous and/or have a very specific build they want to go for.

[x3n0n]

Personal opinion: Rolling for stats sucks, unless you are fully randomizing your character, top-to-bottom, a la Stars Without Numbers, to see what interesting character you will be playing.


When DMing:

Players get the option to choose one or the other of the following:

1.) Standard point buy/array and a half-feat of choice (Variant human gets additional feat as normal).

2.) Heroic Array [16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10]

It's not quite 50/50 in what my players usually choose (slightly more prefer the half-feat), but it's close. No chance for characters to be severely under- or over-powered and flexible enough for variation.

Just wanted to make sure I followed what your option 1 is. Does "half-feat of choice" include the associated half-ASI, or just the other half of the feat?
And the mention of variant human is just to clarify that it gets both the v.human feat of choice plus the additional half-feat?

[Dalinar]

Preface: I have a tiny fraction of the experience of most players here, and I've only really used point-buy. So I'm just kinda putting this out there.

What if we have a house rule where the DM has a d20 table of random feats (maybe not the same table every time, or maybe different tables based on your class), and you roll on the table for a free feat after choosing your class but before generating stats? (Reroll if you don't meet the prerequisite? Just ignore prerequisites?)

This would give players an excuse to try the weaker feats that aren't usually worth the slot (hello, Dungeon Delver, Durable, Keen Mind, Linguist, etc.), might give feats that don't match the class (what's the Wizard doing with Grappler?), or might give you something you'd change your build around for (Ritual Caster/Magic Initiate giving you Find Familiar for instance opens up a lot).

You'd have to pick the feats for the table pretty carefully to avoid too much of a power gap (i.e. avoid common picks like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Elven Accuracy, etc.), but you'd achieve some randomness in character creation while hopefully not letting anyone feel like they're screwed over.

There's a lot of details to hammer out, but hey.

[BigRedJedi]

Just wanted to make sure I followed what your option 1 is. Does "half-feat of choice" include the associated half-ASI, or just the other half of the feat?
And the mention of variant human is just to clarify that it gets both the v.human feat of choice plus the additional half-feat?

Yes, it is the half-feat and included half-ASI, and variant human would get the half-feat in addition to the usual feat of choice.