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

[Oofta]

About a year to two ago, I ran a sample size of 4d6 drop lowest compared to array. This was the result. Funny enough, the average was exactly the same as the array. It's almost like they knew what they were doing...

I've seen pretty much the same results. I was bored one day an wrote a program to generate a million characters.

My observation, taking into account that point buy doesn't allow numbers outside of 8-15 if you translate the resulting numbers into point buy cost:
- Take the numbers as rolled, no restrictions, no reroll. Average 21 points
- Only allow numbers between 8 and 15. Average: 27 points
- Throw out numbers below 8, allow 18. Average: 34 points.
- Throw out numbers below 8, roll until you get at least 1 18. Average 40 points.

So if you really follow 4d6, drop lowest you are worse off (on average). Many groups of course use the Creative Hero Enhanced Attribute Templates (C.H.E.A.T.) system (frequently with the permission of their DM) when rolling stats for characters. If you roll enough characters you will eventually have a good one, something I took advantage of in the old D&D video games like Baldur's Gate.

But the biggest problem I have with rolling dice for stats (unless you C.H.E.A.T.) is the wide disparity of results. In my test I grouped the results of 6 to represent a typical gaming group and compared the difference in point buy cost for each character. What I found was that in the majority of "tables" there was a significant difference in ability scores. Using point buy as a yard stick, most tables had a difference of 30 points or more. That's a huge variation, if not in outright combat ability, in options for what people can play and how much they can contribute to out of combat skills.

For my example, Player 1 rolled 8, 6, 12, 16, 17, 13, which would have cost 35 points with a point buy.

Player 2 on the other hand rolled 6, 8, 9, 16, 10, 9, which would have cost 14 points with a point buy.

I look at those numbers and can say that while the method to generate the numbers may have been technically fair, the result is not fair.

Player 1 can write up a character with any class and cut a shining heroic figure. Player 2 ... not so much. Can you come up with a character that would "work"? Sure. If they do any of the martial classes their strength or dex is decent, but their hit points are going to be significantly lower than Player 1's.

Story Time: the last time I did straight by-the-book roll 4d6 drop lowest, I rolled a decent character, my wife rolled incredibly poorly (a single 14, a 10 and everything else below) while another gal (Sue) at the table rolled a couple of 18s and a low roll of 14.

Neither my wife nor Sue were happy with the characters. Sue felt guilty, my wife had a significantly gimped character with stats that could not represent the heroic character she had envisioned when we were discussing what we wanted in the campaign.

When my wife asked if she could reroll or use the point buy system from the living campaign, the DM just laughed, and said something along the lines of "that's too bad you rolled bad but it's fair because everybody rolled".

Sue eventually committed suicide-by-goblin because she felt guilty. Since you can't be forced to testify against your spouse, I can neither confirm nor deny that she secretly adjusted her numbers to something reasonable.

 

[hejtmane]

When 5E came out we used the default array for the PCs. After a year or so we started using 4d6 drop the lowest. It tends to result in higher scores than the default array. Put simply I think 5E function better and it opens up more options with higher ability scores.

Put simply it seems to fix certain classes if you roll high and it makes things like TWF more viable and it also makes medium armor suck less. It also makes things like the hypothetical Mountain Dwarf wizard or Sorcerer more viable.

All of the gish classes also look a lot better if you roll higher ability scores. If you roll crap the Moon Druid is a great class along with the Morph from EN5ider. A main problem of all the gish classes in the PHB with the exception of the Paladin is multiple ability dependency (MAD). Put simply to be effective you need a good physical score, spellcasting stat, decent con, and dex as well if you are using medium armor. Put simply you kind of want 4 stats 14 or higher or a 14 dex with medium armor or 15 strength in heavy armor. Valor Bards are a prime example as they want a decent attack stat, charisma, dex and con. Most of the gish also are not proficient in con saves.

The dex based melee classes and TWF also tend to get over shadowed due to certain feats (unless you are having a featless game then dex is super stat). This is because you want to get a 20 dex ASAP so you can get your 17 or 19 AC (AC 18-20 strength based generally). With point buy you can get 20 dex by level 6 or 8. A 20 strength is nice for a strength based fighter but 18 strength+ feat is a great option as your AC is not keyed to your strength score.

Other options that tend to be a bit meh are things like Bladedancers in SCAG. Under point buy they are not actually that good at erm blade dancing and you are better off usgin it to enhance your AC, movement and concentration rolls than attempt to be a bad fighter. Our Bladedancer rolls 3 scores over 16 and with racial modifiers + resilient(con) feat she has 3 18's at level 4 (con, int, dex). She plays a very aggressive wizard suffice to say in regards to melee and uses flaming sphere+ melee attacks (1d8+4+2d6+2d6 damage lvl 4).

So basically my players are mnoving away from the usual feats as they tend to have higher ability scores and prefer being awesome with new options (monks, gish, etc) over abusing the usual suspects (GWM, SS, CE, PAM) which they did earlier in 5E's run. We have Rogues defaulting to daggers as a weapon, sword and board fighters using short swords, assassins dual wielding.

Been using 4d6 drop the lowest since Unearth Arcana back in liek what 1984 and if you look at the PHB it is actually the main way everything else is an option. I also gotten more variety of races with classes have a Dwarf that is a monk, cleric. Fallen assmair as a EK.

 

[Prakriti]

If you are going to roll for ability scores, then everyone rolls at the table in front of everyone else. That goes without saying.

But I don't think that's what [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] is talking about. I think he's saying that a lot of people actually use a different method than what's in the book, usually one that includes safety nets or allows do-overs. in which case, they shouldn't present their method as being by the book or their results as typical.

So, yeah -- I think it's fair to be suspicious if someone claims to consistently get much higher ability scores from rolling. Either their table is a statistical outlier or something fishy is going on.

 

[S'mon]

I've seen pretty much the same results. I was bored one day an wrote a program to generate a million characters.

My observation, taking into account that point buy doesn't allow numbers outside of 8-15 if you translate the resulting numbers into point buy cost:
- Take the numbers as rolled, no restrictions, no reroll. Average 21 points
- Only allow numbers between 8 and 15. Average: 27 points
- Throw out numbers below 8, allow 18. Average: 34 points.
- Throw out numbers below 8, roll until you get at least 1 18. Average 40 points.

So if you really follow 4d6, drop lowest you are worse off (on average). Many groups of course use the Creative Hero Enhanced Attribute Templates (C.H.E.A.T.) system (frequently with the permission of their DM) when rolling stats for characters. If you roll enough characters you will eventually have a good one, something I took advantage of in the old D&D video games like Baldur's Gate.

But the biggest problem I have with rolling dice for stats (unless you C.H.E.A.T.) is the wide disparity of results. In my test I grouped the results of 6 to represent a typical gaming group and compared the difference in point buy cost for each character. What I found was that in the majority of "tables" there was a significant difference in ability scores. Using point buy as a yard stick, most tables had a difference of 30 points or more. That's a huge variation, if not in outright combat ability, in options for what people can play and how much they can contribute to out of combat skills.

For my example, Player 1 rolled 8, 6, 12, 16, 17, 13, which would have cost 35 points with a point buy.

Player 2 on the other hand rolled 6, 8, 9, 16, 10, 9, which would have cost 14 points with a point buy.

I look at those numbers and can say that while the method to generate the numbers may have been technically fair, the result is not fair.

Player 1 can write up a character with any class and cut a shining heroic figure. Player 2 ... not so much. Can you come up with a character that would "work"? Sure. If they do any of the martial classes their strength or dex is decent, but their hit points are going to be significantly lower than Player 1's.

Story Time: the last time I did straight by-the-book roll 4d6 drop lowest, I rolled a decent character, my wife rolled incredibly poorly (a single 14, a 10 and everything else below) while another gal (Sue) at the table rolled a couple of 18s and a low roll of 14.

Neither my wife nor Sue were happy with the characters. Sue felt guilty, my wife had a significantly gimped character with stats that could not represent the heroic character she had envisioned when we were discussing what we wanted in the campaign.

When my wife asked if she could reroll or use the point buy system from the living campaign, the DM just laughed, and said something along the lines of "that's too bad you rolled bad but it's fair because everybody rolled".

Sue eventually committed suicide-by-goblin because she felt guilty. Since you can't be forced to testify against your spouse, I can neither confirm nor deny that she secretly adjusted her numbers to something reasonable.

What is a reasonable minimum for rolled stats? I'm thinking at least one 13+ and net mods positive might work in 5e. Is that too low? Gives a starting +2 on one attribute after racial mods.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you are going to roll for ability scores, then everyone rolls at the table in front of everyone else. That goes without saying.

But I don't think that's what [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] is talking about. I think he's saying that a lot of people actually use a different method than what's in the book, usually one that includes safety nets or allows do-overs. in which case, they shouldn't present their method as being by the book or their results as typical.

So, yeah -- I think it's fair to be suspicious if someone claims to consistently get much higher ability scores from rolling. Either their table is a statistical outlier or something fishy is going on.

Sort of, but nothing official as a houserule. For example, if I tell any group of players (especially if I don't know them) to roll up PCs with 4d6, and if that generation isn't in front of everyone else, then I guarantee you that the stat sets from those PCs will be much higher than what is statistically possible. Largely because one of two things:

If the stat sets aren't what the player likes, he or she will reroll them until they get a set they like (how many of us kept clicking on the "reroll" button when creating video game PCs lol)
If a stat roll is really low, then the player will simply roll another set of dice. I.e. "I rolled a 16, 15, 12, 12, 11, and 6. I'll just roll one more time to get rid of that 6."

Statistically, the odds are good that if you roll 4d6, then you're going to have at least one low score. And yet, over 35 years of seeing PCs handed to me, it almost never happens.

So the whole point of what I was saying is that if you do those aforementioned things, then of course 4d6 is going to look better, because you're stacking the odds in it's favor by fudging the rules as written. That's all. Personally, I don't care if people fudge their dice rolls if the table is OK with it, but don't compare it to array or point buy as being superior when you do so, that's all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Didn't AD&D have rules to reduce and increase scores after you rolled?



That is part of the appeal of rolling, if I just could actually roll low without being forced to rerroll. I really wish there was a way to get 5 or 6 no matter what.

Basic did (increase by 1, decrease by 2).

 

[Oofta]

What is a reasonable minimum for rolled stats? I'm thinking at least one 13+ and net mods positive might work in 5e. Is that too low? Gives a starting +2 on one attribute after racial mods.

Your mileage will vary. In my experience if people get a character they don't like with dice rolls they will either ask to reroll or the character will be suicidal.

Which is why I would say "reasonable" is to use point buy.

Then again, I did organized play for years where we were expected to use an array/point buy of one sort or another. Once people get used to it, most prefer it from what I've seen.

 

[Prakriti]

Neither my wife nor Sue were happy with the characters. Sue felt guilty, my wife had a significantly gimped character with stats that could not represent the heroic character she had envisioned when we were discussing what we wanted in the campaign.

Sue eventually committed suicide-by-goblin because she felt guilty. Since you can't be forced to testify against your spouse, I can neither confirm nor deny that she secretly adjusted her numbers to something reasonable.

This bothers me. I'm thinking of starting a new online campaign soon using rolled ability scores, and I usually get way more applicants than I need. The thought of anyone cheating or sabotaging the game just because they don't like the rules is really disheartening. If they don't like the rules, then why agree to play? There are plenty of other tables out there.

 

[Oofta]

This bothers me. I'm thinking of starting a new online campaign soon using rolled ability scores, and I usually get way more applicants than I need. The thought of anyone cheating or sabotaging the game just because they don't like the rules is really disheartening. If they don't like the rules, then why agree to play? There are plenty of other tables out there.

Well, in our case we didn't "agree" to the rules. We asked to use point buy and the DM refused.

As far as to why Sue (the gal with the uber-stat-character) committed suicide by goblin, you would have to ask her. I think she always felt guilty about how she had won the stat lottery while my wife had lost.

This is just a cautionary tale. Our DM was a friend and generally a good guy but he just had a blind spot. Personally I would not join a game where stats were rolled again, in this case we did not realize it would be a requirement until we had our first session.

 

[S'mon]

Your mileage will vary. In my experience if people get a character they don't like with dice rolls they will either ask to reroll or the character will be suicidal.

Which is why I would say "reasonable" is to use point buy.

Then again, I did organized play for years where we were expected to use an array/point buy of one sort or another. Once people get used to it, most prefer it from what I've seen.

I've been using point/buy array in all my 5e games until a couple weeks ago; two players wanted to roll. I let them roll - a third player took standard array. They rolled well but if they'd rolled really bad I'm pretty sure I would have let them reroll.