D&D 5E Rolled character stats higher than point buy?

He's probably better off having never seen play. At least that way he never got eaten by a grue at first level. What a tragedy that would be. :)

Knowing my group, it would have been rot grubs. :) But yeah. I don't regret not playing him. I find myself having the most fun when things are harder. The more you overcome, the more memorable it is. IMO anyway.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Are they also averse to letting players award each other Inspiration? I'm guessing so, since I can kinda understand their thinking here from what you've said, but it's with trying if you haven't yet.
 

Try rolling stats in order (using whatever system you want: 3d6, 4d6k3, whatever). Now, this is random and gives the player no control. But after rolling six ability scores in order, pick two and swap them over!

Been there; done that. I'd have the t-shirt if they gave out t-shirts for that sort of thing.

You've address some of the issue of control in randomness, but you haven't addressed the fundamental problem that your system is equivalent to the DM assigning different players different amounts of points to spend before play even begins. You've not addressed the problem that in an average group of 6 players, using a method like 4d6k3, you'll have one player with 2 16+'s and nothing below 11, and another player with nothing above 14 and multiple scores below 10. So you've not addressed the fundamental problem that over the long run, the characters that are played tend to be the ones that are above average, and engaging in ever elaborate dice rolling rituals tends to drive that average expectation upwards.

Looking at the array you rolled, and mulling over the possibilities, gives you ideas that you cannot get in a system where you had total control from the start.

Usually this is only true in the sense that if you are making a wizard, you wouldn't normally have any points left over to spend in Charisma, and if you did you wouldn't spend them there but on something more reliably useful like Dexterity or Constitution. I think you are romanticizing how this plays out in practice, by remembering only the rare cases where it works out, and not remembering all the dull and uninteresting cases where it didn't. In the past when this topic has come up, I've illustrated this by rolling up 30 or 40 4d6k3 stat arrays to show how dysfunctional it usually is, but I don't have time at the moment. I leave it as a task for the interested student.

Point-buy allows you to metaphorically make your PC more stupid so that he is stronger. If you want a PC with high Str and aren't bothered with Int, why would you ever choose to have Str 14 and Int 10 when you could have Str 15 and Int 8, knowing that you have two racial +1 bonuses to assign? Thus, the evolutionary pressure for a population of 16s and 8s, with a dearth of (statistically more common) 10s and 11s.

This sort of argument actually cuts against your earlier argument that randomly rolled results were more interesting. In fact, a good many results will be 6 scores of between 10 and 14, with no obvious way to make the character in any way surprising or interesting. If you are really committed to random, you have to accept those pretty common 13,12,12,11,11,10 arrays as really interesting and inspiring results. Swap two out to customize! Exciting right!

Using this 'roll in order, swap one pair' method, your wizard might be strong or charismatic or whatever.

Yes, sometimes. But generally speaking, this only happens when you have a relative abundance of good scores. Once you give a player control, they are going to start optimizing. So the swap is going to be between something they really need, and something they really don't. If they don't have the needs well covered, but strength is high or charisma is high, then that salient stat is going to get swapped with the low Dex or low Con that they don't feel they can endure. In practice, once you allow any manner of control, these unexpected characters become really statistically rare except when they are also well above average characters.

Which is why in my own history of dice rolling char gen methods, I dumbed both swap methods I tried. I then tried not allowing swaps at all, but allowing the player to choose one ability that he could roll 5d6k3 for. But this still failed to work because even 5d6k3 is highly random and produces if not a large number of low rolls, still quite a few average rolls.

I imagine a university for student wizards. Each is likely to have high intelligence or they wouldn't have passed the exam to get in! But can we really say anything about what their other stats would be? Some people are charismatic or strong or what-have-you, and these people are randomly scattered among the population, including that university for wizards! This method much more accurately models that likely student population, because you can make sure that your Int is good enough by swapping a good roll into Int if it isn't good enough already, but four out of five of the others will be random.

But what about that same university using point-buy? What, every single one has Str 8 and Int 16? Really? Have you been to a university? Was every single student on the same course equally weak? Equally un-charismatic?

This argument would only apply to a university where everyone was a PC. In my own game, it would be rare to encounter any NPCs nearly as broadly gifted (as much points to spend) as the PCs, and whether gifted or not, they'd tend not to be optimized as PCs would be. So yeah, as a DM I'd be empowered to move useful high DEX or useful high CON out of those slots and into STR or CHR or WIS, in so much as it pertained to NPCs. As such, the reason for your loathing seems pretty strange to me. PCs are unusually gifted persons with unusually perfect aptitude for their chosen professions. NPCs however are not.

And in general, I haven't had as much problem with players choosing to perfectly optimize as you'd expect. It's very rare to see either perfect system mastery, combined with an aesthetic of play that considered survivability/power to be the be all and end all of chargen.
 
Last edited:

I had PL (precautionary landing---tech speak for mild crash landing) in the middle of a mine field in Bosnia. We didn't blow up. Seems to me that doing that isn't very risky....

Law of averages man. Using one example to make a statement like this seems pretty odd

This objection would make a lot more sense, if the stat array I posted wasn't a completely ordinary near average result under the suggested method. The average roll I got was a 14.67. That's only a few points above the 14.2 or so (haven't worked out the exact math) that the method produces. Go ahead and try 30 or so cases and see for yourself. There will be a few low outliers with averages around 12 or so, but they'll also be some tremendously high multiple 18's results as well. I mean either 3d6 reroll the 1's or 4d6k3 will tend to produce results near average point buy. You combine the two, and you are no longer doing anything remotely as chancy as landing in a mine field in Bosnia.
 

This objection would make a lot more sense, if the stat array I posted wasn't a completely ordinary near average result under the suggested method. The average roll I got was a 14.67. That's only a few points above the 14.2 or so (haven't worked out the exact math) that the method produces. Go ahead and try 30 or so cases and see for yourself. There will be a few low outliers with averages around 12 or so, but they'll also be some tremendously high multiple 18's results as well. I mean either 3d6 reroll the 1's or 4d6k3 will tend to produce results near average point buy. You combine the two, and you are no longer doing anything remotely as chancy as landing in a mine field in Bosnia.

4d6 drop lowest produces almost the same average as array, I don't disagree there. but your "average" isn't. It's about 2 points higher than what the math actually is. I actually posted several examples earlier. I'll post again. So when you say you don't see the risk based on a one time inflated out of the ordinary result, that's a flawed assessment as I said.

statgen.jpg
 

Been there; done that. I'd have the t-shirt if they gave out t-shirts for that sort of thing.

You've address some of the issue of control in randomness, but you haven't addressed the fundamental problem that your system is equivalent to the DM assigning different players different amounts of points to spend before play even begins. You've not addressed the problem that in an average group of 6 players, using a method like 4d6k3, you'll have one player with 2 16+'s and nothing below 11, and another player with nothing above 14 and multiple scores below 10. So you've not addressed the fundamental problem that over the long run, the characters that are played tend to be the ones that are above average, and engaging in ever elaborate dice rolling rituals tends to drive that average expectation upwards.

The part in bold here doesn't follow from the part before it.
 

4d6 drop lowest produces almost the same average as array, I don't disagree there. but your "average" isn't.

But I didn't use 4d6 drop lowest. I used what the poster had said was his default method, which was 4d6 drop lowest AND reroll ones. The reroll the 1's can be thought of replacing the 1 on the dice with a 4 (because you replace it with the results of a d6, but replace the 1 in that result with the results of a d6 and so forth). That automatically drives the average result up. But I suspect that there is going to be some synergy here since its often going to be the '1' that we otherwise would have dropped. In any event, it's trivially obvious that 4d6 drop the lowest AND reroll ones has a better average statistical result than just 4d6 drop the lowest.

In the single test I made, the drop the ones made a huge difference in the results, driving up the results for one ability score (with two 1s in the first roll) by 5, driving up two others by 3, and changing the 17 to an 18. Without the rerolls of the 1's it would have been more like 17, 14, 13, 11, 11, 9. And that would have been a fairly good but mostly average result of 4d6 drop the lowest.

Following me now?
 
Last edited:

I'm 100% certain that anyone rolling stats in my games is perfectly fine with it.
Why? Because they're CHOOSING to do it.
Each player has the option to generate their stats via standard PB limits, standard array, or rolling 4d6 drop one (doesn't HAVE to be the lowest, but I've never seen that happen). Their choice.

IF YOU ROLL:
1) You're doing it at the table in front of the group. We like to witness the rolls & cheer or jeer right along with you. And they get recorded.
2) You're only rolling 1 set of stats.
3) You WILL play the character you generate this way in good faith. After all, you had the opportunity to take a sure thing but chose to leave it to chance....
This is, essentially, my way of handling cases where players really, really want to roll for stats. It can still cause problems, though....

When we started 5E, we recognized the "old school" feel to the system and decided to roll for stats. At a five person table, three had unremarkable (i.e. equivalent to point buy), one had an average of about 15, and one had an average of around 10. Compared to the "normal" characters, the low character was somewhat under-powered, but made a passable one-trick pony (sneak). Compared to the normal characters, the high character was a bit annoying and overly competent, but not really disruptive if you're fine with a single hero and his sidekicks. When you compared the high-score halfling wizard to the low-score rogue, the halfling was an above average wizard but incidentally about as good of a sneak as the rogue. This completely removed any real opportunity for the low-score player to shine and totally took the wind out of his sails. This may not have been as big of a deal in 1E, where the wizard couldn't even try to sneak, but the flexible skill system and addition of backgrounds has some serious side effects.

That said, I don't see a problem with rolling stats. You just have to define the style of game you're playing and what you want out of it. Recognizing that it is a gross oversimplification of a lot of things, the GNS breakdown works for this.

A strong Narrativist bent would lead a group to wanting characters who a differentiated, but balanced, so that 1) no one character regularly outshines the others and 2) no one character has a lousy story.

A strong Gamist table would be open to random stats because it's part of the challenge of the game. Part of that is also the game restriction of minimum scores, etc. It's the same rush as drawing random races in Cosmic Encounters, or any number of other games.

Yes, a Narrativist group might like the organic story that forms around ad hoc characters or a Gamist group might want to see how everyone does given an even start. Maybe it's safest to say those are the two scenarios where I'd gravitate to one or the other.

Additionally, it drives me nuts when groups that roll end up with frequent re-rolls for low scores. That's just a way of saying "We want higher stats." There really are some unplayably low score characters (all 3s), but a character with all 18s could be just as disruptive. I guess it's not really that the groups want higher scores, it's when there's the illusion that the rerolls and minimums don't raise the averages -- especially if the rolled characters are played next to point-buy.
 

The part in bold here doesn't follow from the part before it.

Yes, it does. Perhaps I haven't made clear why it follows, but it follows.

You've agreed that the characters that are played are the ones that tend to be above average.

The question becomes what defines 'average'. I'm arguing that average is defined by the table expectation of what a 'good character' looks like, which is going to be circularly defined by being 'above average', thus creating a feedback loop.

Suppose you are playing 3d6 straight up, then average is above an average score of 10.5. A character then with mostly 12's and 13's is an above average character, and players at that table will then have the expectation that a player ought to play that character rather than throwing it away or rerolling it. Suppose that group however tires of the randomness in 3d6 straight up, and decides to play 4d6 drop the lowest. This initially works better. There are fewer players with unplayable characters, fewer requests for do overs, and so forth. But you'll still have the problem that one guy in the group got the character with the equivalent of like 46 point buy, and you are playing a character with the equivalent of 15 point buy - perfectly normal results for something as random as 4d6 drop the lowest. As more and more players begin to find playing with higher stat characters normal, the ones that are left out of the goodness feel worse and worse about their substandard characters - even if a year or two before they would have been mostly content. That's because a year or two before, a character with no 16's was normal. But now, most players have the expectation of a higher stat array.

So what tends to happen is when a player rolls up a new character, if his scores are now mostly 13s or less, the rest of the group (and the DM in particular) takes pity on him and says, "Dude, that's just bad luck. Have a do over." And the more emergency do over's you have to call for, the more the group starts thinking, "Gee, this 4d6 drop the lowest method isn't working out." Because whenever you allow do over's in your preferred gambling method, it tends to create cognitive dissonance. The method no longer feels as fair, and in particular I would argue that do overs are attacking the illusionism that makes dice rolling fun for everyone. So they come up with a new rule that they agree is fair and everyone should live by, like say "4d6, drop the lowest, but reroll the ones." And then, the process repeats itself, because the new method generates higher averages and with it higher expectations about what a good character actually is.

Looking back, I see that process either playing out or had already played out and reached some sort of extreme that produced such high results that, along with a bit of judicious cheating, no rerolls were ever asked for in just about every group I was involved with that used dice rolling.
 

Random thought.

Based on the old superhero RPG Golden Heroes, where you rolled randomly for your powers, could it be possible to build PCs based on random collections of abilities drawn from all classes, and have to then produce a rationale for how your PC came to have them?

D100 table, asterisks can be taken up to 3 times; choose to use one roll to upgrade an upgradeable power:

01-03 Mobile
04-06 Druid Wildshape
07 Monk openhand Attack
08-11 Hordebreaker
12-20 Extra Attack*
21-23 Fey Ancestry
24-27 Magic Initiate
28-29 Rage
30-37 Spellcaster (roll 1-2 Sorceror 3-4 Druid 5-7 Warlock 8-12 Cleric 13-17 Wizard 18-19 Ranger 20 Paladin)* (1 roll=5 levels)
...etc etc up to
96-00 Choose

Might be fun.
 

Remove ads

Top