power creep in starting ability scores

[Velaryon]

My main group uses a method similar to what OP described, except only rerolling 1's, not 2's. It does result in powerful characters, but I think we all prefer that anyway. I've suggested point buy once or twice in the past, if only for the sake of variety, and it's always been unanimously voted down.

I've played point buy with a couple other groups and found that while I'm not opposed to the concept, I don't like it with the standard number of points. Perhaps it's a consequence of being used to the rolling system above, but I find that I am simply not happy with a character if I don't have 18+ in my most important ability score right from the start. For the sake of not making waves I will begrudgingly settle for a 17 in my primary ability score (as long as I'll have the chance to improve it fairly quickly), but anything less and I'm just not enjoying myself.

For the game I run for teens at my library, I let them choose to either point buy or roll. I'd say about 60% choose to roll, 40% choose to point buy. When I get new players who don't know how to play, I usually make their character for them and roll... but I've been known to just bump up a stat if their rolls came out really low, especially if they're playing a MAD class like Monk.

Clearly we can at least agree that the worst option is the very old-school style "Roll 3d6. This is your Strength. Roll 3d6. This is your Dexterity... etc etc, now choose a race and class from among those that you meet the ability score requirements for."

Tried it, hated it, will never ever play this way again.

[Anonymouswizard]

After playing other games I've found that the way D&D is set up I have the choice between bad and bad. If you go point buy you don't get enough points to have a decent tertiary stat for your class, if you roll results are too random, and whichever method you pick characters end up cookie cutter in their stat placement. A lot could be gained from meaningfully buffing the weaker stats, giving a few more points, and maybe letting players swap out a few points for a Feat or extra Proficiency.

[Pex]

After playing other games I've found that the way D&D is set up I have the choice between bad and bad. If you go point buy you don't get enough points to have a decent tertiary stat for your class, if you roll results are too random, and whichever method you pick characters end up cookie cutter in their stat placement. A lot could be gained from meaningfully buffing the weaker stats, giving a few more points, and maybe letting players swap out a few points for a Feat or extra Proficiency.

Point Buy as a concept is fine. The trouble is in 5E's implementation of it. My favorite Point Buy version is Pathfinder 1E. The 25 Point Buy gets you a decent tertiary stat. 20 is ok too though racial modifier has a large effect. 15 Point Buy is only good for SAD classes. Paladins and Monks do not want to play in 15 Point Buy. Scores start at 10 for free. You can choose to go to 9, 8, or 7 for a few extra points elsewhere to have a true dump stat. It is expensive to buy an 18, but buying the 16 is fine and racial modifier can make it 18. However, two 16s instead of an 18 is nice too, especially for MAD classes. With 20 Point Buy and racial modifier 16 16 14 10 10 10 is possible for human if bland, but it suits a MAD class. In games past I have chosen to take an 8 or 7 in accepting a dump stat. I've done it with IN despite the major hit on skill points. I accepted skill use was not his shtick for the game and took advantage of Take 10/20 when possible.

[Sigreid]

Thinking about it, if the group as a whole wants to reroll ones and 2s, you might compromise and make it 3d6 re-roll ones and 2s. Just a thought.

[Kvess]

The only method of rolling for stats that I allow at the table is the one listed in the PHB. I’ve heard proposals for inflating the numbers rolled, or rerolling if the results fall under a certain threshold, but I fundamentally don’t understand what leads someone to want to roll for stats, but not accept low numbers.

You aren’t gambling if there isn’t a chance you’ll lose.

[Kvess]

Thinking about it, if the group as a whole wants to reroll ones and 2s, you might compromise and make it 3d6 re-roll ones and 2s. Just a thought.

What you’re describing is effectively 3d4+6. It might be helpful to look at the expected distribution of that dice roll before deciding to use it in a game. https://anydice.com/program/2a709

[Sigreid]

What you’re describing is effectively 3d4+6. It might be helpful to look at the expected distribution of that dice roll before deciding to use it in a game. https://anydice.com/program/2a709

I personally think rolling 4d6b3 is the way to go. But, if it brings peace to the table the 3d6 reroll 1-2 or just take a 1 or 2 as a 3 is a compromise that will at least somewhat tone down the stat inflation. In the end though, the only thing that really matters all that much is that all players have the same options. i.e. If you want to give players a choice between point buy, standard array and die roll, but they have to live with the choice they make and the consequences, it's fine as long as everyone has access to choose all the options available.

[Pex]

The only method of rolling for stats that I allow at the table is the one listed in the PHB. I’ve heard proposals for inflating the numbers rolled, or rerolling if the results fall under a certain threshold, but I fundamentally don’t understand what leads someone to want to roll for stats, but not accept low numbers.

You aren’t gambling if there isn’t a chance you’ll lose.

There is an inherent luck factor. The math of the game matters. One low score does not a bad array make. Not necessarily two low scores, but if the entire array is bad to mediocre the character will not work. There's no point to playing the character if it keeps failing at everything, especially its forte of what it's meant to do. Rerolling is not about getting as many 16s, 17s, and 18s as possible. It's to avoid characters that will not work because the game math fights against them. There is no fun in it.

[diplomancer]

There is an inherent luck factor. The math of the game matters. One low score does not a bad array make. Not necessarily two low scores, but if the entire array is bad to mediocre the character will not work. There's no point to playing the character if it keeps failing at everything, especially its forte of what it's meant to do. Rerolling is not about getting as many 16s, 17s, and 18s as possible. It's to avoid characters that will not work because the game math fights against them. There is no fun in it.

Which is the reason for my suggestion of "choice between point-buy or rolling. If you don't like your rolls, you can get the Standard Array". It simultaneously:
1- gives a meaningful choice to players. Point-buy is better than Standard Array, but can be worse than rolling;
2- has a chance of avoiding "cookie-cutter" characters, so you will likely have different characters, unless all your players are very risk-averse;
3- provides a reasonable "bottom" for rolling, than ensures the character will be playable and DM won't have to compensate for a weaker character;

while mostly avoiding too powerful characters, which many alternate rolling methods might end up providing.

[Amnestic]

The ideal way to roll is 1d20, six times. Why are we messing about with d6 or - heaven forbid - d4s? It's a d20 system! Bell curve? Pfah. If the stalwart d20 is good enough for ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws then it must be good enough for stat rolling.

Here's my array: 2/2/20/9/12/2

A perfectly reasonable stat distribution, I think we can all agree.

My second array: 19/20/4/17/18/16. Likewise, perfectly reasonable.

[Kvess]

There is an inherent luck factor. The math of the game matters. One low score does not a bad array make. Not necessarily two low scores, but if the entire array is bad to mediocre the character will not work. There's no point to playing the character if it keeps failing at everything, especially its forte of what it's meant to do. Rerolling is not about getting as many 16s, 17s, and 18s as possible. It's to avoid characters that will not work because the game math fights against them. There is no fun in it.

My players trust that if they roll abysmally, I will find a different way to ‘reward’ them for playing a character with mediocre stats. The universe will take interest in them and their decisions will matter more than usual.

If the character dies a terrible death, it will be an entertaining one.

But, if it brings peace to the table the 3d6 reroll 1-2 or just take a 1 or 2 as a 3 is a compromise that will at least somewhat tone down the stat inflation.

What’s “peace to the table?” Players are able to make requests, and I’m able to say no. Players are able to decide if they want to roll or not. While I don’t always agree with my players, we’re reasonable adults who respect each other’s time.

[diplomancer]

My players trust that if they roll abysmally, I will find a different way to ‘reward’ them for playing a character with mediocre stats. The universe will take interest in them and their decisions will matter more than usual.

I'm glad your players enjoy it, but one thing I absolutely dislike is DMs who show favouritism to characters, even if it is to compensate them for unlucky character generation rolls. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[RazorChain]

I usually go for point buy though I may vary the amount the group gets, atm one of the groups I'm running for have 35 points + starting feat with the cap of 15. This means that MAD classes do just fine. It also means I can throw a little harder encounters their way.

I have used 4d6 drop the lowest with two other groups that I'm running for and I had lucky Players roll really good stats while I've had others roll ****ty stats.

[Kvess]

I'm glad your players enjoy it, but one thing I absolutely dislike is DMs who show favouritism to characters, even if it is to compensate them for unlucky character generation rolls. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Where does this desire for fairness come from? The characters at my table are like my children. I like some of them more than others.

[Anonymouswizard]

Point Buy as a concept is fine. The trouble is in 5E's implementation of it. My favorite Point Buy version is Pathfinder 1E. The 25 Point Buy gets you a decent tertiary stat. 20 is ok too though racial modifier has a large effect. 15 Point Buy is only good for SAD classes. Paladins and Monks do not want to play in 15 Point Buy. Scores start at 10 for free. You can choose to go to 9, 8, or 7 for a few extra points elsewhere to have a true dump stat. It is expensive to buy an 18, but buying the 16 is fine and racial modifier can make it 18. However, two 16s instead of an 18 is nice too, especially for MAD classes. With 20 Point Buy and racial modifier 16 16 14 10 10 10 is possible for human if bland, but it suits a MAD class. In games past I have chosen to take an 8 or 7 in accepting a dump stat. I've done it with IN despite the major hit on skill points. I accepted skill use was not his shtick for the game and took advantage of Take 10/20 when possible.

Oh point buy is, IMO, the lesser of two evils. I just don't think the way it's done in D&D where you can only spend it on stats and can't be truly bad at something. As pointed out on the first page some of us actually do like our characters being BAD at things, which 5e is set up to mostly avoid. I've never had a 3 or 4, but I have enjoyed characters with the equivalent of 6s and 7s.

The ideal way to roll is 1d20, six times. Why are we messing about with d6 or - heaven forbid - d4s? It's a d20 system! Bell curve? Pfah. If the stalwart d20 is good enough for ability checks, attack rolls and saving throws then it must be good enough for stat rolling.

Here's my array: 2/2/20/9/12/2

A perfectly reasonable stat distribution, I think we can all agree.

My second array: 19/20/4/17/18/16. Likewise, perfectly reasonable.

I once had to roll 1d13+7 eight times and take the best six. That lead to wide variance, with two characters with 3+ 20s and one with nothing above 14. It didn't feel great to be that much better from a character who, to be honest, had good scores.

On the other hand, for a one shot I can see the hilarity of generating stats with a d20.


But yeah, most of the time 'just pick' works fine.

[KorvinStarmast]

PB should be 28 or 29, but as a point buy system goes I prefer the one in 13 Age

[Sigreid]

What’s “peace to the table?” Players are able to make requests, and I’m able to say no. Players are able to decide if they want to roll or not. While I don’t always agree with my players, we’re reasonable adults who respect each other’s time.

We don't have problems at my table either. I was thinking of a table where half or more of your players are shall we say over invested in the dropping of ones and twos.

[Isaire]

Rolling for hp is awful for me, in a way that rolling character stats isn't. The thing about rolling character stats, is that that informs the choices I make about my character, and who they are, and what they do. Randomness can be quite helpful for that.

If I've decided my character is a big tanky barbarian, and then roll low hp rolls, especially at low level, it feels more like my choices after invalidated, and my character can't do the thing they were built to do. I'm sure a very experienced role-player would be fine with that, but it's not for me yet!