D&D 5E Random, balanced, fail proof 5E stat generation system

Umbran said:

I find it odd that we trust the GM of a game to build entire worlds and generate every challenge the PCs face, but we don't trust them to look at generated characters and tell us if they are too high, too low, or just right for the game or compared to other characters.

Click to expand...

lowkey13 said:

I think that should be true, but I would point out the following-

1. I have observed some comments where there ... doesn't seem to be a lot of "DM trust." Which has always seemed odd to me (it's hard to have a game, IMO, without DM trust, and if you don't trust your DM, then find another table) but there it is.

Click to expand...

Whether or not to trust a DM isn't the same issue as whether the DM should have that much power or how much power a DM should have. A lot of people feel that the DM taking a way an array of highly rolled stats to be power the DM shouldn't have. It really isn't about trust. Players shouldn't necessarily have that power either, as you could easily imagine a player who would cheer on having another player being asked by the DM to reroll god stats, but totally freak out if the DM asked them to do it.

lowkey13 said:

2. D&D is a social game, and this can be a fraught part of the social compact. I use Paul, and his never-ending supply of 1e Paladins as an example. Paul always rolled his characters away from the table. Paul always rolled Paladins (and an 18/9x strength). Did we know he was cheating? Well, yeah. Did we say it? No. Paul was a friend, and in the grand scheme of things, this was a small issue.

Click to expand...

The big issue with this is that people talk about rolling random stats in threads like this, and I don't consider what you just described and rolling stats and than playing whatever the result is to be in any way related. Yet people talking in these threads seem to talk as if they are. These threads are also not just unclear about whether those two are the same thing, but whether fudging/cheating is ok or not. It's like the whole thing is just glossed over or taken for granted.

lowkey13 said:

3. Building on (2), people have an innate sense of fairness. For example, most (not all, but most) people hate being given something and then having it taken away. Which is why Monty Haul campaigns can be hard to correct. It's the same with rolling abilities - if someone takes a chance, and fairly rolls an awesome character, then it's hard to tell them, "Yeah, that's just too awesome." By the same token, there is a removal of that risk if everyone knows that if their character rolls too poorly the DM will just top them up.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, but given this is rolling really worth all the hassle?

lowkey13 said:

4. All that said, rolling dice for abilities is fun, if you have the right table. But at some tables, point buy is a better method. It depends?

Click to expand...

Rolling dice for abilities being fun and rolling dice for abilities being fun as long as you're allowed to win isn't the same thing.

*Deleted by user*

My solution:

1) Roll 3d6, in order, for each stat.
2) Now spend 12 points, as per rules for Point Buy (with 1:1 cost below 8)
3) Add racial bonuses.

Even if you were committed to a particular class and you happened to get a 3 for your prime stat you could get it to 14 with 12 points, so "viable" is always within reach.

lowkey13 said:

I think you are missing the point. I've had table with experienced gamers that played 3d6 in order, and were fine with the results. That's not "winning," (although there isn't winning in D&D, so I'm unclear on your use of the word). But these were gamers who had long ago moved on from stat bonuses and were more interested in creating a character based on the randomized abilities.

Click to expand...

1. Not caring about stat bonuses does not make you a better roleplayer
2. Your missing the point. The point isn't whether it is good or bad, it's that rolling and rolling plus fudging/cheating are not the same thing, and when people simply say "we rolled our stats" or "we prefer rolling stats" without any other qualifiers it's almost never clear what that means.

Hiya!

You could always try "Paul L. Ming's Patented Wheel-of-Pain Stat Generation Method!"

This method is "group based". That is, everyone should really be at the table when this is done, like at the start of a new campaign. The basic premise is this: Starting at either the left or right side of the DM, the player picks up 3d6 and rolls. This coninues around the table. Now, what the DM does is grab a sheet of paper and draw a circle with 6 'spokes' (think of a ships steering wheel, or a clock; a line up/down, left/right, and two between each..giving 5 spokes on each side, plus the one up and the one down). Now, the Top 'spoke point' is 10+, the bottom 'spoke point' is 9-, and the left 'side' of the wheel is "high", the right 'side' is "low". As each player rolls his/her 3d6, the result is placed at the next 'over' point. This continues until all 'spoke points' are filled. If you run out of high/or low points, the remaining rolls of the players can only be what remains (ignore higher/lower rolls).

It sounds way more complicated than it is...hehe... you basically roll a "high and low" pair for every spoke. The players then, as a group, choose which 'pairs' they want to use. EVERY character has these base stats. The DM should make note of the chosen stats in his campaign notes so that if/when a PC dies, another can be made with the same stat choices available.

Ex: If Josh rolls first and gets a 14, it goes on the top. Next, Curtis rolls a 6, it goes at the bottom. Zoltan then rolls and gets a 9, it goes to the right of the 14. Cheryl rolls a 9, it goes next to Zoltans roll of 9. Tracey rolls a 17, so it goes to the left of the 14. This continues until all the 'spoke points' are filled up. Then the players choose 'pairs'; so if they decide they want the first 14, they also have to take the 6 that Curtis rolled (14 was the 'top' and 6 was it's opposite). Make sense?

Anyway, this has proven to be popular because some hot dice could see characters like the group currently has: 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8. Then again, it could go the other way (like last game, where I think the low three were 8, 8, 6, and the highest was 14...can't remember the other two stats). Another benefit...nobody feels like their character is "weaker" than any other, and they all feel like more of a "group" in stead of individual players all sitting around the same table.

If it's confusing, I can try and write up some visuals or maybe do a video or something.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

*Deleted by user*

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

There is no optimal way to get ability scores.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, this is /thread.

Everyone has their own way of doing things. It's great when we come up with a neat way to generate stats, and we all enjoy sharing that with others and having people say that it's a good idea and they'll use it, too. On the other hand, people can be extremely sensitive and picky about their preferred way to generate stats, as this thread more than proves! I think the OP's method has gotten more criticism than warranted. I think it is at least as good as any other method ever created.


Personally? I sort of hate stat generation. Having uneven characters is so annoying to balance when running a game (I've written at length about this) that I'll never run a game with non-point-generated stats again. But I've gone way further than that.

I decoupled stats from races and classes. I don't like how stats push you to one character class or race or another - especially how NOT doing that can still lead to uneven characters. So I made all characters use their best stats for all their attacks and powers. Why not? Who cares if the wizard can swing a dagger as well as a fighter? Why can't the wizard use Str to cast and the paladin uses Int to swing a sword? There's a much more interesting array of character possibilities that way, without pushing everyone into the same old molds. (And you can't tell me you haven't already started trying to justify it in your head.) It also makes the table math a lot easier (you all have a DC 14 spell save, you all have +6 to hit with whatever you're using, etc.).

I've actually gone even further and ditched "3-18" as stats altogether: now you just get -1 to 5, and there's no translating or clutter. Every 4 levels you get +1 point, can't raise anything above 5. It's the same exact system, but with less thinking about it.

Anyway, my point here is that my method? Just as good as your method. Because who cares? I like it and it works for our group; your method works for your group; the OP's method works for their group. You can't lose because there are no winners.

Saelorn said:

That's a lot of numbers, but the take-away I'm getting from this is that, in order to play an average character - the type of character who won't immediately die - everyone should have at least 14 in Constitution.

That can't be right.

Click to expand...

I agree in two directions.

First: Constitution makes almost no difference unless it is negative or maxed.
Second: The contribution brought to survival by Constitution is cumulative. At level one, it's pretty meaningless.

Even a Barbarian Dwarf or a Variant Human Barbarian with Toughness and maximum Constitution is only going to have 19HP (1d12+5Con+2 toughness). That's a lot, but not enough to really secure a character against a few good hits. They're still very killable.

Most characters will be sitting somewhere in the 8-12 range of health, except for maybe that one really scrawny Wizard who has 6HP. Adding one or two hit points to any of those numbers, while it looks like a lot, is ostensibly meaningless. 5E has by far, the weakest purpose of Con that I've ever seen. It could be completely removed and it's appropriate checks assigned to almost any other score and noone would notice the difference.

-------------------------

At the topic on hand, this system is overlycomplex and promotes mediocrity. If you want a "simple" system that achieves the same goals, just create a "flat" array like: 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13. Or go even simpler and give every score a 14 (or whatever number you pull out of your ear).

I like the idea of classes giving stat bumps, but I'd turn the idea around like this: Remove the "base" +2 stat bump that each race gets, leaving only the "subrace specific" bump and then give each class a floating +X(1 or 2, whatever works for your game) to one of two of their scores (in the case of races with no subrace, just remove the +2 bump). Boom. You will immediately see a lot less elf rogues and a lot more dragonborn wizards. Or whatever else people can get creative with because the +1 is far less determination of what class you're going to be playing.
For added clarity, here's a list:

Hill Dwarf: +1 Wis
Mountain Dwarf: +2 Str
--Dwarves previously got +2 Con at base

High Elf: +1 Int
Wood Elf: +1 Wis
Dark Elf(Drow): +Cha
Eladrin(DMG): +1 Wis
--Elves previously got +2 Dex at base

Lightfoot: +1 Cha
Stout: +1 Con
--Halflings previously got +2 Dex at base

Humans (as is)
-Why? Because there's no need. Humans have no racial traits, which puts the stock human below the other races. Variant human puts them on-par with other races.

Dragonborn: +1 Cha
--Previously had +2 Str

Rock: +1 Con
Forest: +1 Dex
--Gnomes previously got +2 Int at base

Half Elf: +1 to any two scores
--Previously had +2 Cha as well

Half Orc: +1 Con
--previously had +2 Str as well

Tiefling: +1 Int
--previously had +2 Cha

All the classes would then offer a +1 in either of their "primary scores". Barbarians are strong because they're trained to be strong, not because all the strong races become barbarians.

Done and done.

Personally: I'd go a little further and give each race a floating +1 in either of their possible scores. So, Tieflings could get +1 in Int or +1 to Cha, High Elves could get +1 to Dex or +1 to Int, etc... I think I'll save this for the next game I run.

shidaku said:

5E has by far, the weakest purpose of Con that I've ever seen. It could be completely removed and it's appropriate checks assigned to almost any other score and noone would notice the difference.

Click to expand...

Hilariously (still on a tangent here) I also did that: I made the "Body" stat which replaces Str and Con. Con does basically nothing outside of saves, concentration checks, and obscure other checks - all of which are easily switched to Str, as you stated. And it hurts nothing. (Not that you need to, but I also changed HP generation to: first level get hit die, all other levels get hit die - 1. Very easy to do/remember and it's nearly the same as before, unless a campaign gets into high levels, and nearly none do.)