D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

Ratskinner said:

Now, 4d6 drop the lowest has an average value of about 12.24. Multiply by 6 stats and you get about 73.44 points....so if we can squeeze out around ten more points, we should get the same kind of results. So, take that set of cards and replace the 1's with the 3, 4, and 5* of the remaining suit and that gets you pretty close. Again, shuffle and deal them out in groups of three. If you want to be generous, let the player swap one pair of cards after dealing. I've tried it a bunch of times, and with the swap you can almost always get at least one really good score.


* 3, 4, 5 gives you 9 additional points
4, 5, 6 gives you 12
3, 4, 6 gives you 10 spot on, but a higher chance of seeing a "rolled" 18
If you have more than one deck of cards, you can replace them with all 4's or 5's, but you can lose some variety in the scores that way.

Click to expand...

If you're looking to simulate a 4d6 roll, you want a higher chance of seeing an 18 (and other high rolls). A deck with three 6s has a 1/136 (0.7%) chance of seeing an 18. If you roll 3d6 six times, you have a 2.7% chance of seeing at least one 18. If you're using 4d6k3, it's 9.3%. So you should build the deck weighted more towards the high values. This makes sense if you think about it, because the deck is really representing not eighteen rolls, but the best eighteen rolls out of twenty-four -- and a roll of 6 is always going to be the best, so there should be more of them. Messing with the numbers a bit, it looks like a deck that drops off like:

6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1

produces a curve closer to the 4d6k3 curve. (But actually, the odds of an 18 are still too low.)

hastur_nz said:

How many players are going to enjoy playing with one arm already tied behind their back, especially if it's a long-running campaign? ... deadly 'old school' campaigns ...

Click to expand...

Nothing at all wrong with a long-running deadly old-school campaign* - best way to do it, if you ask me. And the character stats in that game are all over the place. Doesn't matter, for the most part, as the players aren't going for "builds" the way 3-4-5e seem to define such.

* - at least my players seem to think so, as they keep coming back every week for more.

Lanefan

Ya know, an out-of-the box quasi solution just came to mind. It'd only work in a 5e-like game where characters get auto-boosts to their stats as their level goes up, but how's this:

Intention: that characters with low starting stats get a chance to "catch up" a bit as the game goes along.

Implementation: after roll-up and racial adjustments, add the sum total of the character's stats. 15-14-13-12-10-8 for example comes to 72. Then, instead of everyone getting the same amount of automatic stat increments, the total determines how much increment they can expect and when to expect it. Note this table isn't perfect, I'm pulling this out of my hat as I type it. Also note it's intentionally designed only to reduce the disparities, not remove them entirely.

Starting total - ASI for that character

60 or less - +2 stat points every even-numbered level (total of +20 over 20 levels)
61-65 - +2 stat points every 4th level (at 4,8,12,etc.) and +1 every 3rd level (at 3,6,9,etc.) (total of +16 over 20 levels)
66-70 - +2 stat points every third level (so at 3,6,9, etc.) (total of +12 over 20 levels)
71-80 - +2 stat points every 4th level (at 4,8,12,etc.) OR +1 stat point every even-numbered level (player's choice; either way it's a total of +10 over 20 levels)
81-90 - +1 stat point every 3rd level (at 3,6,9,etc.) and +2 at 10th level only (total of +7 over 20 levels)
91+ - +1 stat point every 4 levels (total of +5 over 20 levels)

Howzat?

Lan-"assuming, of course, one wants to keep ASI's at all"-efan

Oops, wrong thread

TheCosmicKid said:

If you're looking to simulate a 4d6 roll, you want a higher chance of seeing an 18 (and other high rolls). A deck with three 6s has a 1/136 (0.7%) chance of seeing an 18. If you roll 3d6 six times, you have a 2.7% chance of seeing at least one 18. If you're using 4d6k3, it's 9.3%. So you should build the deck weighted more towards the high values. This makes sense if you think about it, because the deck is really representing not eighteen rolls, but the best eighteen rolls out of twenty-four -- and a roll of 6 is always going to be the best, so there should be more of them. Messing with the numbers a bit, it looks like a deck that drops off like:

6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1

produces a curve closer to the 4d6k3 curve. (But actually, the odds of an 18 are still too low.)

Click to expand...

If you include the "swap two cards" rule and assume min-maxing an 18 becomes fairly common. You have an opportunity for an 18 11.76% of the time.

Also note that simulating 4d6k3 is not the goal here, its more of a norm-enforcing mechanism. I mean you can't even theoretically draw three 18's, nor can you draw three 6's...and that's kinda the point. Perhaps even more importantly, if you draw the 18, your other stats will suffer for it.

TheCosmicKid said:

What about rolling with normalization measures? @Ratskinner just described another one.

Click to expand...

I didn't read Ratskinner's post in detail (something about dealing cards). I'm wary of anything that can't produce a full 3-18x6 range though. It should be at least theoretically possible to roll all 3s or all 18s. When you say "normalization measures" that sounds like it's deliberately trying to thwart that.

Besides, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The fact that 5E makes the default stat rolling method actually work out of the box and be fun no matter what you roll is the singlest strongest point in its favor IMO, and the one area where 5E clearly dominates AD&D (2nd edition) in my opinion. The way the stats actually work out of combat is a bit linear and boring, but as far as making it exciting to roll a brand new stat array (no matter what the rolls are) and see what type of PC comes out of those numbers--5E is very good at that.

The problem with standard array is that you only get a brand new stat array once, ever. After that it's just the same stat array as last time, every time.

Hemlock said:

I'm wary of anything that can't produce a full 3-18x6 range though. It should be at least theoretically possible to roll all 3s or all 18s.

Click to expand...

Why is that important? Sure, not every player gets bummed out if they roll all 3s, but some of them do. What do you gain from their dissatisfaction? Normalized random methods keep everybody happy, and do not suffer from the problems you've cited with point buy and the base array: they're different every time, and they can produce scores above 15 and below 8. There is of course some anticorrelation, but, especially if you produce the scores in order, it can still result in unexpected combinations like being both smart and strong.

And frankly, I'd argue that anticorrelation in ability scores is a good thing. Sure, there may be some guys out who have have all 18s, but there are also some guys out there who are storm giants. The game does not expect you to be playing those guys. It expects you to be playing mortals with distinct strengths and weaknesses. If you do want to play a storm giant or an all-18s character, you can always arrange it with your DM. But that sort of thing should be a conscious decision, not up to the dice.

Even if you don't buy that, at the very least anticorrelation is not such a bad thing that it's worth players being unhappy with their characters. Right?

My personal preferred method is a hybrid point buy rolled method.

Start out with rolling 3d6 six times in order. After recording your rolls, you get 17 points to distribute following the normal point buy.

This gives you the increased randomness and more "organic" feeling stats that come from rolling. More so even than 4d6 drop lowest as the rolled 3d6 must be placed in order. The 17 remaining points allow players to flesh out their rolls, increasing low rolls or further enhancing high ones. Due to the rules of 5e point buy, you still can't increase an attribute above a 15 with points alone, leaving the truly high attributes to the very lucky few who manage to roll a 16+ on a single 3d6 roll.

TheCosmicKid said:

Why is that important? Sure, not every player gets bummed out if they roll all 3s, but some of them do. What do you gain from their dissatisfaction? Normalized random methods keep everybody happy, and do not suffer from the problems you've cited with point buy and the base array: they're different every time, and they can produce scores above 15 and below 8. There is of course some anticorrelation, but, especially if you produce the scores in order, it can still result in unexpected combinations like being both smart and strong.

Click to expand...

They're still homogenous though. They're not all the same in exactly the same way a standard array is, but if they truly are normalized then they're still all the same in fundamental ways that I will quickly notice, and they are therefore kind of boring.

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Rolling for your stats is how Dungeons and Dragons was meant to be played. This skill array nonsense needs to be stopped.

Do understand that 4d6 is meant for "heroic" characters. Those guys of legend who are better than the common rabble. Back in 2E there were 3 options for character generation. 3d6, which is the default that was used since the Basic set, 4d6, for heroic characters, and a skill point buy system similar to the one we're using in 5E. This standard skill array is nonsense IMO.

Rolling gives for more variability and fun, and gives you the feel that you are role-playing a unique character, sometimes you get a CON of 5, but what can you do, that's life. Or maybe you were born an idiot with an INT of 4. It happens. And it's fun. Standard Array makes everything homogenized and you end up wanting to Min-Max your character instead because from the get go you are allocating limited resources. This is not how D&D should be played.