D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Piratecat]

We had the opposite -- someone who complained his dice rolls were always awful and complained about it regularly. With one noted exception (six failed 4e saving throws in a row), he was wrong and they were exactly as good or bad as anyone else's, but he sure didn't see it that way. I felt for him.

Last time my wife's dice acted up, she lined them up and drilled through one of them with a power drill while the others watched. Sometimes you have to set an example. It worked.

Back on topic, I like point buy more in 5e than in previous editions. Ability scores matter a lot more, so a wider range really amplifies a character's effectiveness.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I don't consider rolling stat vs standard array a punishment but a fair gamble. I like the difference the various ability scores generating methods provide, the more options the better!

My group personally prefer to roll though. We like the greater risk and variation it gives.

 

[weldon]

One idea I've played with is that if the player wants to roll for stats and isn't happy with the resulting character, they can re-roll. This new roll is for the younger sibling of the first character. They can keep going as long as they want, but there are in-game consequences for being the 15th child in a family. They get stats they are happy with, but face other challenges in-game that they have to overcome.

If they get lucky on the first role, they can take the Noble background and get some advantages, being the heir in their house. If they are the 5th child and take Noble, then maybe they don't get the extra starting money and are ignored by their parents and older siblings. If they are 15th, then maybe they came from a rural background (peasant farmer?), maybe even an orphanage, and need to work that out over the course of the campaign.

Extra bonus, I keep track of the earlier rolls and those older siblings become NPCs. Yes, you have awesome stats now, but your older sister who isn't quite so awesome is jealous and is out to get you.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

One idea I've played with is that if the player wants to roll for stats and isn't happy with the resulting character, they can re-roll. This new roll is for the younger sibling of the first character. They can keep going as long as they want, but there are in-game consequences for being the 15th child in a family. They get stats they are happy with, but face other challenges in-game that they have to overcome.

That is the problem right there: rolling stats can fail badly in the fun department unless there are meta incentives that the DM carefully applies.

So it is not necessarily that people who assert "rolling is fair" are right or wrong, but it is simply unknowable what they really mean until I have sat at the table with them and played a few campaigns with them.

If a beloved PC dies and I an less than enamored with the younger brother who is trying to fill his shoes, as a player, why can I not play recklessly with Arathorn2, so I can roll up Arathorn3 sooner? Your way cuts out some cruft, but it works because of meta incentives. Importantly, these are meta incentives that cannot really be explained well in a rule book.

 

[Umbran]

You know how a properly made d20 should roll natural 20s about 5% of the time? He rolls 20s about 20% of the time, give or take. Any d20 you put in his hand, not just 'his' dice. Roughly the same with stats. He is just lucky.

With respect - has this gentleman made himself rich and gotten himself banned from casinos for cheating? Why not?

Suggestion: try the same experiment, but use a dice rolling cup, and see what happens. His "luck" may be "manual dice manipulation".

 

[weldon]

That is the problem right there: rolling stats can fail badly in the fun department unless there are meta incentives that the DM carefully applies.

I guess I'm trying to introduce a kind of fun into the campaign that relies on making choices and living with the consequences. I wouldn't use re-rolling as a stick to punish the player (I still want their character to be the star of the show), but I do want them to accept that their choice has meaning in the game. If they want to re-roll a bunch to get awesome stats, that's fine. They just have to accept that this changes some other things in the game world.

If a beloved PC dies and I an less than enamored with the younger brother who is trying to fill his shoes, as a player, why can I not play recklessly with Arathorn2, so I can roll up Arathorn3 sooner?

Interesting. My choice would be to avoid this. You roll up numbers until you are happy and then play that character. If that character dies, you start over and you can choose array or random. But you start over.

Your way cuts out some cruft, but it works because of meta incentives. Importantly, these are meta incentives that cannot really be explained well in a rule book.

This is a good point. I think for this to be really successful, you have to explain the rules up front so that the player is given a clear choice. Use the standard array and craft your background as you see fit, or roll random and give up some control of your background in exchange.

 

[Hapami]

Being somewhat of an average roller, myself, I've always had a fair amount of empathy for those who roll poorly (my longest-lasting character in any game is a Hackmaster 4E Cleric with a high stat of 16 -- in Dex). However, I and the groups I play with all tend to really enjoy rolling stats over point buy for the fun, but point buy over rolling for actual play. So when I run games, I try to have some sort of failsafe that they can fall back on.

In 5E, so far, I've had my players roll 4d6 drop lowest initially, and then they can take their roll, the array, or point-buy. No one has felt that they were left behind stat-wise with this method so far, and everyone has had plenty of opportunity to enjoy smashing things over the head (or finding hidden things, or intimidating people, etc.).

 

[Thank Dog]

One of the most interesting stat generation ideas I've ever seen I heard about here on this board. Get everyone together at the table. Then everyone rolls six ability scores using 4d6 drop 1, and all of those scores go up on a whiteboard in numerical order (not as sets). Then - and this is the cool part for me - the players decide between themselves who gets what scores. They can take turns picking numbers, which are then crossed off the list of available options. They can agree to give one character higher scores and one character lower scores, but they'd need to decide that as a group. The DM just hangs out, eats a burger, and makes sure everyone thinks it's fair.

How is that functionally different from simply using point buy? You know, other than taking five times as long?

Overgeeked, here's a stupid question. In your opinion, would your opinion change if you felt you consistently rolled well for stats instead?

I know it was addressed to Overgeeked but I'd like to chime in on this as well. I mentioned it earlier, in fact, that I dislike having high rolls as much as low rolls. At the end of the day, it forces me to make a character based on scores I have no control over. It's no longer a PC at that point and rather becomes an NPC that I'm playing.

I really don't get what people's obsession is with rolled stats. I have never once seen it result in anything other than problems at the table.

 

[Piratecat]

How is that functionally different from simply using point buy? You know, other than taking five times as long?

Turns out to be fun, and tends to be really good for team building around the table as people negotiate to get the character they want. I'd never do it for a short game, but our campaigns tend to last 5-15 years, so it makes for a nice start. As always, YMMV.

It's no longer a PC at that point and rather becomes an NPC that I'm playing.

I really don't get what people's obsession is with rolled stats. I have never once seen it result in anything other than problems at the table.

This is a really foreign concept to me, because I feel the reverse. Standard array feels like I'm playing a NPC, someone identical to everyone else at the table. Rolled stats feels like my own PC, and point buy is probably the best compromise for me, as it allows lots of variation within fair boundaries.

We rolled stats from 1e until we started playing 3e, and it wasn't usually a problem. That said, individual stats play a much bigger role nowadays than they used to. I'd hesitate before rolling nowadays.

 

[Authweight]

How is that functionally different from simply using point buy? You know, other than taking five times as long?


I know it was addressed to Overgeeked but I'd like to chime in on this as well. I mentioned it earlier, in fact, that I dislike having high rolls as much as low rolls. At the end of the day, it forces me to make a character based on scores I have no control over. It's no longer a PC at that point and rather becomes an NPC that I'm playing.

I really don't get what people's obsession is with rolled stats. I have never once seen it result in anything other than problems at the table.

I think part of the appeal of rolling for scores is that you avoid the fiddliness of point buy. The truth is that nobody has ever figured out a really good, elegant approach to point buy. IME players, both experts and newbies, spend all day juggling numbers around trying to get it perfect. Rolling is fast and has a pleasant sort of finality to it. You don't need to worry about all the different possibilities, because your choices are much more circumscribed. Many people are much happier to be given a small number of options than a huge number, because the second-guessing can drain the fun out of things.

Using the array is similarly simple and has a lot of the same advantages, but it makes everyone use the same exact stats, which sort of feels lame. Rolling introduces enough variation to feel natural while still being quick and simple.

All that said, I personally lean towards point buy or using the standard array. But I totally get the appeal of rolling.