Rolling Abilities

[erik_the_guy]

Does anyone know why this was included in this edition? Random stats seem more realistic (some people are better than others) but less balanced (some people are better than others). Isn't this the opposite of the new D&D philosophy (which favors balance over realism)?

The problem is that some of the players in my campaign prefer rolling, and if I tell them 'no' they become sour and hateful (not good for a game that is supposed to be fun). However, the book states that their ability modifiers should still be in the +4 to +8 range. What they end up with is closer to +11 to +12.
Now I have to convince them to lower some stats for balance or they will be WAY stronger than the other party members. No one should have two 18s, one of them has 3...
Why was the optional rolling rule even included. It should have had a big disclaimer that said "always get DM's permission before rolling for abilities". Point buy is much more balanced.

 

[Dalzig]

They ran out of hamburger buns.

 

[ravenight]

doesn't the rule say to reroll if your total bonus is outside the acceptable range?

 

[Innuit]

Personally, I would never play with rolled abilities. My current group did and it sucks for the guys who rolled bad. In fact, guess where our 2 casualties came from, the high or low cumulative modifier. Abilities mods are the best thing in this game, especially at lower levels. Players with average scores are going to be gimped and ultimately die as you increase the challenges for the higher stat'ed PC. If you want your players to be a bit more bad ass, then just give them an extra point or 3 for buy point.

 

[generalhenry]

One time back in 2E I did it.

That's right.

I had them roll 3d6 in order no rerolls. And back then classes had stat requirements. They fought a werewolf with the one bard casting magic missile and one of the many fighters using a silver knife (1d3)


Ah good times...


For 4E I'd use stat buy.

 

[strumbleduck]

The rolling method actually gives slightly lower scores on average than point buy.

In particular, a player who uses the rolling method only has about a 1 in 10 chance of getting an 18. The chance of rolling three 18's is only 1 in 12,000. So either:

• Your player was amazingly lucky, or
• Your player was somehow confused about the system, or
• Your player fudged his or her roles.

 

[Dalzig]

The problem I've had with rolling is that it's always one player that always rolls amazingly lucky.

On two seperate occasions, we've had a player roll, in front of the whole group, 13/17/17/17/17/17 WITHOUT rerolling any dice. I think he ended up playing a monk the last time that happened.

When I roll stats, I always get something like 5/7/10/10/11/13 after rerolling 1s. I begged for pointbuy when I played a PC. -_-

And really... not even a benign "heh" to my sacred cow joke? *Dalzig is sad*

 

[ValhallaGH]

Why was the optional rolling rule even included. It should have had a big disclaimer that said "always get DM's permission before rolling for abilities". Point buy is much more balanced.

It does. The fact that it's Optional. Whether or not an optional rule is used is determined by the DM. Period.

 

[Dalzig]

It does. The fact that it's Optional. Whether or not an optional rule is used is determined by the DM. Period.

It's not stated to be optional. It's stated to be "Method 3." The only part even possibly disallowing its use is "You can't use this to make characters for the RPGA."

 

[habaal]

For a few years now I've been rolling four d6's, choosing the highest three. In addition, I roll seven times and pick the highest six for attributes.
That way I get high results most of the times, and me and my players are happy with it. In comparison, the suggested Point-buy system seems too weak.

Not that it's a bad thing, my favorite character was a fighter with 14 str and 16 con, with a cha of 7... with the right feats and tactics, especially in higher levels, he was kickass and fun to play.