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

[cbwjm]

Not to mention the fact that Tik can change her approach and beat that hound anyway, despite her "low" stats. (And in fact, a Str of 16 isn't remotely low. Tik is as beefy as an adult gorilla.)

Incidentally, this is yet another reason why I hate playing a low Int--it sets a up roleplaying tension that I find unpleasant. At Int 6 I really would have her just wade in there and bash away with her axe until she died; at Int 11 I'd feel a little bit more free to experiment with basic tactics like grapple/prone (esp. w/ Athletics Expertise), combined arms with other PCs, and hiding. (E.g. block the door with some rubble and try to climb out the chimney.) At a higher Int I might feel comfortable letting her take a few opportunity attacks if necessary in order to bait the hound out into an area where it can be killed with mounted tactics. The higher your Int, the more foresight you have, and the more sophisticated your tactics can appropriately be. (This applies to monsters too, obviously. My goblins don't do the goblin conga line because they're not smart enough and coordinated enough; but my hobgoblins do follow a tactical doctrine that includes taking cover in broken terrain, and horse archery/kiting in open terrain.)

One character I want to play is a half-orc barbarian who solves everything with his axe. I want to contribute to every plan with "Maybe Krunk not smartest there is, but Krunk have axe. What if Krunk hit them with axe?"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One character I want to play is a half-orc barbarian who solves everything with his axe. I want to contribute to every plan with "Maybe Krunk not smartest there is, but Krunk have axe. What if Krunk hit them with axe?"

Ah yes, that sounds like a very relaxing, low-maintenance PC to roleplay. Harry Dresden would love it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I wonder if part of the problem some people have is due to how stats have changed over editions. Ever since 3e, you gain modifiers much sooner whereas in earlier editions you gained bonuses from a stat of 15 or above. In 2e, someone with all 14s would be similar to someone with all 9s at the most basic level. There would be some differences, but on the whole not much in basic running around the dungeon gameplay.

In 2nd edition, the biggest effect of many stats was that they would unlock special classes, e.g. ranger or paladin or specialist wizard. Of course those special classes came with restrictions too. Interesting tradeoff IMO.

5E has a touch of this in how it restricts multiclassing based on stats.

 

[Lylandra]

Just as a quick non-mathematical and more fundamental thought on this matter:

D&D is pretty un-biologic in terms of stats and stat development. Which means that in D&D you are either born with great strength, constitution, intelligence etc. or you are not. After "birth" you stats change only marginally and, to be honest, only very few people in the D&D world reach more than, say, level 4. So level progression does not really change much at all.

In my opinion this is the crux behind all of our discussion of whether one should roll first, create the character later or vice versa. Because life usually doesn't work that way. I could have great genes for muscle development, but totally focus on studying biology and end up with a "Str 8". If I then started training, I could easily raise my Str 8 to a Str 12 or 13 or even more. I can be totally "intelligent", but still choose a sports carreer and never learn to foster thinking logically. And speaking of charisma, one can go from extroverted to shy to utterly charming in a matter of years.

So I guess even if we didn't change anything in terms of D&D stats (and I would really advocate to give people more stat increases like in 4e so they don't have to focus on a "main stat"), I still stand behind the thought that both approaches are totally viable and that no one should be forced to roll 3 or 4d6 in order . Because we, as an intelligent species, generally have more choice that that. But that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Ratskinner]

I wonder if part of the problem some people have is due to how stats have changed over editions. Ever since 3e, you gain modifiers much sooner whereas in earlier editions you gained bonuses from a stat of 15 or above. In 2e, someone with all 14s would be similar to someone with all 9s at the most basic level. There would be some differences, but on the whole not much in basic running around the dungeon gameplay.

I think it does have an impact...the early editions strongly incentivised players to lie or cheat their stats, especially fighters with their exceptional strength. The last AD&D campaign we played, the Dwarf Fighter simply outclassed the human fighter in every single way imaginable because an 18/76 (at start) is so completely superior to a 16 Str. The Dwarf player (who always seems to be playing a Dwarf with at least an 18 Str) just couldn't let it go how "useless" the human fighter was. Not that he was wrong in his assessment of their relative ability to contribute, but ... well let's just say that the proportion of AD&D fighters I've seen with "honestly rolled" exceptional strength beggars believe. (I think the ridiculous rolling methods presented in the 1e Unearthed Arcana serve to demonstrate just how important stats were in early editions.) One of my best friends absolutely refused to play "Slightly-above average man" (all 12's) in a college AD&D game, and I don't blame him. All that character did was qualify to be mechanically horrible at anything.

I honestly think that the effects of the stats (if they are so fundamental to things as Str to an AD&D Fighter) should be rolled into the class at design time. That is, if you pick Fighter...you're strong, done...want non-strong fighters? have separate classes for Swordmasters and Brutes (or whatever coolsy names you want). Same for wizards, etc. and the relevant abilities for them. Skip stat-rolling as a step of character gen. If you want to replace the inspirational thing...have a table of quirks or background traits (maybe one for each class) that everyone rolls on or selects from.

IMO, YMMV, and all that.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Just as a quick non-mathematical and more fundamental thought on this matter:

D&D is pretty un-biologic in terms of stats and stat development. Which means that in D&D you are either born with great strength, constitution, intelligence etc. or you are not. After "birth" you stats change only marginally and, to be honest, only very few people in the D&D world reach more than, say, level 4. So level progression does not really change much at all.

In my opinion this is the crux behind all of our discussion of whether one should roll first, create the character later or vice versa. Because life usually doesn't work that way. I could have great genes for muscle development, but totally focus on studying biology and end up with a "Str 8". If I then started training, I could easily raise my Str 8 to a Str 12 or 13 or even more. I can be totally "intelligent", but still choose a sports carreer and never learn to foster thinking logically. And speaking of charisma, one can go from extroverted to shy to utterly charming in a matter of years.

So I guess even if we didn't change anything in terms of D&D stats (and I would really advocate to give people more stat increases like in 4e so they don't have to focus on a "main stat"), I still stand behind the thought that both approaches are totally viable and that no one should be forced to roll 3 or 4d6 in order . Because we, as an intelligent species, generally have more choice that that. But that's just my 2 cents.

I generally assume that adventurers, given their lifestyle, keep themselves in the top physical and mental condition that their genes* allow. If there's an NPC with a sedentary lifestyle, I might note their Strength and Constitution as "potential" and knock a few points off their actual scores.

*Assuming biology in D&D even uses genes.

 

[Bigsta]

I don't know if anyone posted anything similar, but in high school we did the following to generate stats in 2e:

1d8+10, roll three times for each stat, taking the highest roll in each case.

Unless it was Dark sun, then we rolled 1d10+10.

 

[Seule]

I am not a fan of random rolls. It leads to unbalanced characters which can cause hard feelings. You also get things like the person who has no stat over 10... what kind of adventurer is that going to make?
The two campaigns I have made characters for both use 4d6 drop lowest, then take the default array if you don't like the result. One allowed one rerolls before taking the default array, the other said to roll until you got at least a 16+ or two 14+ stats. In both campaigns I have the default arrays, while other characters started with multiple 16+ stats and nothing under 12. My characters are fun to play, no doubt there, but they seem a lot less effective than others in the respective parties.
It adds up over time.

 

[RotGrub]

There are some game systems that deliberately generate characters you'll never happy with mechanically. You must find it within yourself to look past the numbers.

 

[Seule]

There are some game systems that deliberately generate characters you'll never happy with mechanically. You must find it within yourself to look past the numbers.

Yep. Or play a game that actually has some balance by using a non-random character generation method. If you are okay with a party where one person has every stat at 16+ and another has no stat over 8 more power to you, but that doesn't fit my concept of what a cooperative, party-based adventuring game should be.
I prefer my randomness to happen over time during play where it will even out rather than all at once during character creation.