Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[Lanefan]

Stats. Are. Not. Everything.

The best and longest-lived 3.x character I had (in fact, in almost 30 years of playing, one of the best characters I've ever had in any game) had a starting stat. average of 11.2 after Half-Elf racial adjustments. She was concepted as an attempt to build a 1e Illusionist in 3e, and I stuck with that despite the stats. I think she was something like S-11 I-15 W-7 D-12 Co-11 Ch-11 to start with, and the Wisdom 7 is what made her playable...and fun!

She finally died - killed by her own party, her lack of Wisdom caught up to her - 6 years, 11 levels, and 14 adventures later.

Another character I rolled up at the same time in the same game had stupendous stats - starting stat. average was over 15 - and didn't do nearly as well or last nearly as long.

Lan-"you'll pry these dice from my cold dead hands"-efan

 

[sjmiller]

IME, GMs who are still using random-roll very often take it negatively when objections are made to it. (Especially, understandably, after the fact.) (4) One of my big beefs with random-roll is that nobody complains when they roll high, only when they roll low. And that's what it'll look like. (C.f., Umbran's first reply in this thread.)

Jeff, I am one of those GMs that still uses dice to create attributes. After 31 years of gaming Ifind I still have to remind people that we are playing a game. If the character you rolled up does not make you happy, or will not be fun for you, tell me. We will work together to make the character work for you. I may have you reroll the attributes; I may give you a point boost here or there; I may have us both roll attributes (mine in secret) and you pick either yours or mine; I may ask you what attributes YOU thing would be good. Somehow we would come up with a character you like.

Oh, and looking at the attributes you rolled, if I added up the modifiers correctly I believe it comes up to a +2. For me that is really low, so I would most likely tell you to reroll that and we will decide after that.

Just some feedback from a GM who loves rolling attributes for D&D.

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, that's an illustration. I didn't think it would help, as I said.

Regardless, you're incorrect. Plus-or-minus 5 is hugely significant on a d20 roll, even given the high modifiers that eventually become the norm in a d20 game. I'm not sure what you're thinking when you say "mathematically significant," but by any commonly accepted meaning of that term, plus-or-minus 5 to a d20 roll is immense.

Plus-or-minus 1, in another attempt at an illustration, was significant enough that the 4E designers chose to issue important patches for that game.

And in one final attempt at illustration, plus-or-minus 5 is exactly the difference between DC thresholds in most skills in 3.5/Pathfinder. In other words, plus-or-minus 5 will always make a difference in what level of success someone has with a skill, if level of success matters.

Your close to being correct, the significant value for the d20 is 5 point something and when rounded off, because the decimal is above 0.500, it goes to 6, so mathematically speaking 6 is the value of significant DIFFERENCE on a D20. 5 is close, but following the rules for rounding off it is actually 6.

So calculating the value of significant difference for the D20 the value is 6, so I suggest you go look up how to do it for yourself since you refuse to believe me.

 

[Nifft]

Your close to being correct, the significant value for the d20 is 5 point something and when rounded off, because the decimal is above 0.500, it goes to 6, so mathematically speaking 6 is the value of significant DIFFERENCE on a D20. 5 is close, but following the rules for rounding off it is actually 6.

So calculating the value of significant difference for the D20 the value is 6, so I suggest you go look up how to do it for yourself since you refuse to believe me.

I don't even know where to begin.

Every +1 is significant. (That's why magic swords are so expensive.)

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "the significant value for the d20".

, -- N

 

[FireLance]

My preference for rolling stats tends to vary inversely with the expected life-span of the character. For a one-shot game or a short mini-series campaign, I'd be happy to roll dice and play the character suggested by the outcome. However, for a long-haul campaign, I'd want to make sure that the character is one that I would enthusiastically play for quite some time, and that generally means less randomness and more player choice.

A small amount of randomness might be interesting, though. I wouldn't mind some system of small, random increases and decreases to a character's non-primary and non-secondary ability scores, especially if they can be tied to background events that could flesh out his backstory.

 

[billd91]

I don't even know where to begin.

Every +1 is significant. (That's why magic swords are so expensive.)

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "the significant value for the d20".

, -- N

IS +1 significant? No, not really. Is that +1, applied to your sample of random d20 rolls, enough to accept that the PC with the +1 really is doing better than one that doesn't have it? Given the relatively few rolls a PC makes in the course of a session or an adventure, probably not. The difference in modifiers is dwarfed by the variability of the d20 distribution.

Stack up a bunch of them +1s without matching response however, and you start to see the effect. Though Treebore hasn't explained himself very well, I suspect that's what he's getting at. This is why having a stat of 16 compared to a 20 really isn't all that big a deal statistically. It's only a +2 difference in net effect. That difference is still dwarfed by the variability of the d20 distribution.

 

[billd91]

Plus-or-minus 1, in another attempt at an illustration, was significant enough that the 4E designers chose to issue important patches for that game.

Thinking about it some more, I'm not sure I'd use that as particularly strong evidence of significance. They set out to "fix" the math and deliver a particular result. They didn't feel they were delivering that result, I think, particularly in light of their reputation for having "fixed" the math. Personally, I think the number crunchers on the design team are fixating around expectations that are too narrow. That causes them to issue a so-called important patch that, in previous editions with more tolerance, wouldn't have been deemed necessary.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm another person who HATES rolling for stats. I've actually decided to not join games over it in the past. If I do play in a game with rolls, I'll ask the DM about not doing that, and certainly make my opinion known before rolling.

To all the people who say rolling allows for you to play underpowered "flavorful" characters...why does point buy stop you from doing that? If you REALLY wanted to play such a concept in a point buy game, I've never heard of a DM that would force you to take the max point buy amount if you didn't want to. However, I've also never heard of a player asking for such a thing. Because when it comes down to it, no one really wants to play the gimp. They just "make the most of it" when forced to, and occasionally might end up with a memorable character. You could purposely gimp the PC by making a Int 17 Str 8 point buy fighter. But no one really desires that, so you don't see it happen. It really irritates me that some would make haters of rolling "suck it up" just so they can have their precious little limited ease to work with, rather than just set the limits themselves. And yet, rolling is the method that fosters more "creativity." Excuse me while I gag.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To all the people who say rolling allows for you to play underpowered "flavorful" characters...why does point buy stop you from doing that?

Point-buy doesn't stop creativity.

What rolling does is impose a condition that 1) simulates the randomness of the gene pool and 2) forces you to think from the ground up, making you do the best with what "life" gave you...just like we all have.

It sets boundaries to force your creativity, just like the aforementioned artists working with scavenged supplies or aforementioned chefs creating good meals out of the basest ingredients.

IOW, it's sort of a challenge.

If you REALLY wanted to play such a concept in a point buy game, I've never heard of a DM that would force you to take the max point buy amount if you didn't want to. However, I've also never heard of a player asking for such a thing.

I've done it, more than once, and in a few different systems.

 

[Lanefan]

To all the people who say rolling allows for you to play underpowered "flavorful" characters...why does point buy stop you from doing that?

It's kinda hard to play the underdog when everyone else's dog is just the same as you...

If you REALLY wanted to play such a concept in a point buy game, I've never heard of a DM that would force you to take the max point buy amount if you didn't want to. However, I've also never heard of a player asking for such a thing.

If I wanted to take one of the starting 8's down to a 7, how many DMs would give me a benefit in return?

Because when it comes down to it, no one really wants to play the gimp. They just "make the most of it" when forced to, and occasionally might end up with a memorable character. You could purposely gimp the PC by making a Int 17 Str 8 point buy fighter. But no one really desires that, so you don't see it happen.

Because it's an overblown example. If you've got a 17 to chuck around, you're going to put it somewhere useful to the character's class, simple as that. But rolling gives more options - you might end up with all 15's or better; you might end up with a 6 or 7 to drop somewhere (I always recommend Wisdom, it's fun!); you might end up with a rack of 11's and 12's (these are the worst; I'll always let you chuck 'em and start over). But part of the fun is throwing the dice and seeing what you get.

As long as I've got one* good stat to make a character useful and one bad one to make it fun, I'm not too concerned what the rest are...so I'll gladly take my chances with the dice.

* - unless the character idea I have requires two e.g. a 1e Illusionist.

Lanefan