High and Low Stat discrepancy and opinion

[Grogg of the North]

So I joined a one shot game with a group I've never played before, and we got into a very interesting argument before the game got underway about stats and how they should be. While creating the characters we of course rolled in front of the DM, 4d6 drop the lowest, and put the rolls in what stats you want.

the average rolls of the other 4 members were 15, 15, 12, 12, 10, 8 (I'm mostly rounding since a few 13s and such were around but thats the jist), and I rolled 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, 13. This created a rather odd uproar from the DM when I asked if he'd let them reroll their negative scores since to me that seems like bad rolls.

The DM got a bit miffed and said that my own rolls were 'incredibly high' and that a character is supposed to always have at least one terrible score and only 1 or 2 at a +2 mod or more, and that anything more imbalances encounters. Personally I've never played with a character who had a negative score since in my normal group we don't believe in handicapping a character at creation when they have a pretty low survival rate at 1st-3rd levels anyway, thus I to me the OTHERS scores were the bizarre ones since they seems excited to get 'decent' rolls.

I admit rolling the second 18 was amazing, but to me those scores don't seem anything to really be 'amazed' at since they aren't really a huge boost to things (I never got the big deal behind a +1 addition when mathmatically your not much more likely to roll well, +4 is more decent)

What are your own opinions on stats and their importance and things like this?

A couple thoughts:

1) As a DM, if I were in this scenario and it was going to be an ongoing campaign, I probably would have told the other players that they could add +2 to any one score they wanted. For a one-off. Eh ... maybe, maybe not.

2) Suggesting to the DM that everyone else re-roll may have been a social faux pas. If this was your first time with the group, it may have come across as crossing the line into the DM's territory when you were only trying to be helpful.

3) Ability scores can be important but they're not the be-all of a great character.

 

[N'raac]

True. Which is why, with a random roll system, you should probably roll, then pick race/class, and then assign the stats. And only go for the MAD class if you have the stats to power it.

When I see point buy for that SAD class, he jacks up his main stat as high as he can without crippling his more relevant secondary stats. F'rex, a 26 point buy * Wizard might have 8 STR, 8 CHA, 10 WIS, 12 CON, 12 DEX and jack that INT up to 18.

If you roll, no guarantee you're getting a 16-18. In the OP example, he was the only one to roll better than a 15. But 4d6, drop the lowest, tends to have a lot of "high averages", say 13 - 15. Drop the two 15's in major MAD stats, the two 12's in secondary stats, and the 10 and 8 in tertiary stats, or pick a Wizard with 15 INT and DEX, 12 CON, 12 WIS, 10 CHA and 8 STR (f'rex) and he looks a lot like our point buy wizard, except he was forced to accept a lower INT and a higher secondary stat.

* Those rolls work out to 26 point buy. Would you ever see a Wizard with 2 15's from a point buy optimizer? At a minimum, it would be 16 INT and 14 DEX.

One interesting approach, for Umbran's "random with limits" model would be to roll 4d6, drop the lowest, add up the point buy and adjust to that point buy. If your rolls are over (let's say) 28 point buy, you must reduce stats to get down to 28 - you can't increase any stat. If your rolls are less than 28, you get to increase stats, but you can't lower any. So our 15 15 12 12 10 8 could decide he can't live with a penalty and bump that 8 to a 10, or he could bump one of the 15's to a 16. But he can't drop the other 15 to a 14, drop a 12 to a 10, drop the 10 to an 8 and pump that 16 to an 18. Lucky rollers bring some rolls down, and less lucky rolls means raising some stats, but the initial rolls constrain your options considerably.

 

[delericho]

When I see point buy for that SAD class, he jacks up his main stat as high as he can without crippling his more relevant secondary stats. F'rex, a 26 point buy * Wizard might have 8 STR, 8 CHA, 10 WIS, 12 CON, 12 DEX and jack that INT up to 18.

If you roll, no guarantee you're getting a 16-18. In the OP example, he was the only one to roll better than a 15. But 4d6, drop the lowest, tends to have a lot of "high averages", say 13 - 15. Drop the two 15's in major MAD stats, the two 12's in secondary stats, and the 10 and 8 in tertiary stats, or pick a Wizard with 15 INT and DEX, 12 CON, 12 WIS, 10 CHA and 8 STR (f'rex) and he looks a lot like our point buy wizard, except he was forced to accept a lower INT and a higher secondary stat.

* Those rolls work out to 26 point buy. Would you ever see a Wizard with 2 15's from a point buy optimizer? At a minimum, it would be 16 INT and 14 DEX.

Of course, I agree with all of that. That's why I said point-buy favours the SAD classes, precisely because you can dump other things to boost the main stat. Whereas random rolls may or may not give you that.

The bit of my post you quoted was specifically about using random rolls - that if you're interested in a MAD class you're still better rolling, seeing if the stats will support a MAD class (since they very well may not), and picking your class accordingly. If you get less-than-ideal rolls, go for a SAD class.

One interesting approach, for Umbran's "random with limits" model would be to roll 4d6, drop the lowest, add up the point buy and adjust to that point buy. If your rolls are over (let's say) 28 point buy, you must reduce stats to get down to 28

I don't like that, for two reasons:

- Firstly, I don't like penalising lucky rolls. You took the chance with the dice, so you should reap the rewards. (I understand, of course, that YMMV on this one! That's why I offer a choice of either 28-point buy or random rolls; each player gets to make his own choice.)

- One of the trade-offs between random rolls and point buy is choice: numerically, 4d6-drop-lowest numerically seems to average roughly 31-point buy, but because of the inability to set those scores exactly it's closer to 28 points (because you're unlikely to get exactly the scores you want). So requiring people to roll, and then potentially lower their stats to the point limit is actually quite a penalty - you'd actually be better in this system rolling really low and getting to upgrade!

I suppose it could work well if there were three thresholds - you can choose 28-point buy, or roll with limits. If you get low stats, you get to upgrade them to a 26-point buy; if you get high stats you have to downgrade to 30-point buy. (The numbers are just examples, of course - set them to suit!)

But I suspect that's getting towards being more trouble than it's worth. Certainly, for a one-shot at least, I think I'd just let it slide - the OP got lucky with his stats; good for him.

YMMV on all points, of course.

 

[N'raac]

I don't like that, for two reasons:

- Firstly, I don't like penalising lucky rolls. You took the chance with the dice, so you should reap the rewards. (I understand, of course, that YMMV on this one! That's why I offer a choice of either 28-point buy or random rolls; each player gets to make his own choice.)

- One of the trade-offs between random rolls and point buy is choice: numerically, 4d6-drop-lowest numerically seems to average roughly 31-point buy, but because of the inability to set those scores exactly it's closer to 28 points (because you're unlikely to get exactly the scores you want). So requiring people to roll, and then potentially lower their stats to the point limit is actually quite a penalty - you'd actually be better in this system rolling really low and getting to upgrade!

I suppose it could work well if there were three thresholds - you can choose 28-point buy, or roll with limits. If you get low stats, you get to upgrade them to a 26-point buy; if you get high stats you have to downgrade to 30-point buy. (The numbers are just examples, of course - set them to suit!)

But I suspect that's getting towards being more trouble than it's worth. Certainly, for a one-shot at least, I think I'd just let it slide - the OP got lucky with his stats; good for him.

YMMV on all points, of course.

I'm not advocating the approach - I agree that "random roll" implies acceptance of the vagaries of chance. However, the GM in the OP, and Umbran's comments, lead to a form of "random roll without random chance dictating", which I'm trying to wrap my head around. A choice of point buy or random roll is even more consistent with "you choose to roll, you get the results rolled - you chose not to risk low rolls, and the cost of that risk mitigation is an inability to roll high rolls".

 

[delericho]

I'm not advocating the approach - I agree that "random roll" implies acceptance of the vagaries of chance. However, the GM in the OP, and Umbran's comments, lead to a form of "random roll without random chance dictating", which I'm trying to wrap my head around. A choice of point buy or random roll is even more consistent with "you choose to roll, you get the results rolled - you chose not to risk low rolls, and the cost of that risk mitigation is an inability to roll high rolls".

Fair enough. In which case, I agree.

 

[Sunseeker]

I prefer my players to have higher scores, rather than lower ones and as such I'm fairly generous with rolls. 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1's, re-roll any score of 9 or less, otherwise my homebrew stats of 18, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, arranged as you choose. I like my games to have a certain level of challenge and I don't really enjoy massacring low-level PCs because they couldn't kill a wolf or a couple bandits.