D&D 5E How does your group determine ability scores?

[Oofta]

I had the luck of two exceptional stat arrays (3x16s) and one quite bad one (maximum stat: 1x14, lowest stat 10).
I actually were allowed to reroll my bad array and rolled another exceptional array. But I decided to take the low one and optimized the fun of that character.

In the two exceptional cases I decided to play a fighter and a melee wizard, two classes that don't scale too much with above average stats. So if you have a social contract that allows high and low array characters to play at the same table, and allow the choice to reject a low stat then there should never be a problem.

If of course, all you care is combat performance and there is no appropriate social contract, then rolling is a bad idea.

I'm happy for you if you want to play a PC that can't (by the numbers) contribute equally to the team. It should be a personal choice. I'm just giving my preference.

I don't see a reason to roll for ability scores other than to assure inequitable results.

 

[Reynard]

I am starting a new campaign this week (Iron gods AP converted to 5E) and am having the players use the Standard Array mostly because in the past I have experienced some grumbling with bad or unbalanced die rolls. It's mostly laziness on my part.

 

[Guest 7034872]

it was unfair to put her in a postion to play the character.

I think that's right. We could get into all sorts of linguistic tussles over the exact denotation of "fair," but I've never seen one of those go well on this site, so I'll beg (and plead) that we not do that. The issue, I take it, is that Oofta's wife was put at a severe and unnecessary disadvantage right from before the game even began: a lot of people won't even want to play under those circumstances.

So let's just forget "fair" or "unfair" momentarily and instead talk about "kind" or "unkind." The DM's response was surely unkind.

Here's the way I like to do it, and it follows a principle that goes all the way back to Gygax's own early advice on rolling up characters: each player rolls 4d6 and drops one six times, sure, but they do this twice. That is, they roll up stats for two characters and keep the one they like best. This way there's no cheating, but it also stops anyone from getting royally burned on their initial rolls. This approach, I'll contend, manages to be both fair and kind without becoming unduly soft.

 

[payn]

I am starting a new campaign this week (Iron gods AP converted to 5E) and am having the players use the Standard Array mostly because in the past I have experienced some grumbling with bad or unbalanced die rolls. It's mostly laziness on my part.

Im jealous, I had so much fun running Iron Gods.

 

[Guest 7034872]

DDB is not directly integrated with any online tool, many online tools also have their own PC tracking software. We don't know percentages either way.

Unless you have access to some data I don't, of course.

Oh, no--you're right! Sorry, I was thinking of Roll20.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You are taking two entirely different games and trying to make the same point. Monopoly is an ameritrash game designed specifically not to be equitable at any but the starting stage of the game. Chess, on the other hand, is designed to be equitable entirely. Folks who don't like rolling stats are saying they don't want their D&D to be like Monopoly, they want it to be like chess. However, ideally it should be somewhere in-between. Which is why you have so many failsafe methods during stat rolling and playing like inspiration and/or hero points.

Where I can agree I want my D&D nothing like Monopoly I'm not sure chess is the right way either... one of those corruptive players vs the board games would be nice (only ones I can think of at moment are pandemic and the Cthulhu ones)

 

[Maxperson]

yes I agree games are inharitable unfair... however what we can do is take as much unfairness out as possible without making every game end in a draw.

And I counter with......a lot of the fun of games comes from the inequity(Games where the group plays by the same rules are fair).

no it's not fair that one person can start with 2 18's and nothing lower then 14 while another has a high stat of 14.

Again, you're confusing inequitable with unfair. Fairness only concerns itself with the players playing by the same rules. If they are, it's fair. There's nothing unfair about that if they used the same rules and had the same chances.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think that's right. We could get into all sorts of linguistic tussles over the exact denotation of "fair," but I've never seen one of those go well on this site, so I'll beg (and plead) that we not do that.

agreed/ it often feels like we don't speak the same language

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I counter with......a lot of the fun of games comes from the inequity(Games where the group plays by the same rules are fair).

I am sure people somewhere think golf is fun, and people other places think Monopoly is fun... I wont agree with either group

Again, you're confusing inequitable with unfair.

we have been asked not to argue the difference in words, will you respect that?

Fairness only concerns itself with the players playing by the same rules. If they are, it's fair. There's nothing unfair about that if they used the same rules and had the same chances.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Take Monopoly.

I don't think you want to use a game originally designed to demonstrate unfairness to make the point you're trying to make.