D&D 5E About Rolling for Ability Scores

[Giltonio_Santos]

The preferred method for generating ability scores has been a topic of discussion in my group lately. Since we started playing 5e, I've mostly opted to use point-buy and allowed players to opt out and roll for their ability scores. In my next campaign, beginning this week, I've finally made the decision to outright ban random generation. I have some players upset with that, but I'm not moving back, and the group mostly supports my decision.

Anyway, after talking with other DMs and players, I decided to write about my thoughts on the matter and make it public (here), because maybe other people are interested in joining the discussion with different points of view (with or against random generation). If it reads just like a big forum post, that's probably because English is not my native language.

Cheers!

 

[Mercurius]

A well-considered post (your blog), but I don't entirely agree. First of all, random generation is just fun, and that's the point of the game. Game + fun = fun game. Secondly, "godlike" characters don't really bother me. If all of the PCs are well above average it sort of cancels itself out. I mean, as the DM I can always adjust the opposition.

Also, psychologically speaking, for many--even most--players it is more enjoyable to have an exceptional character. Everyone wants to be a little special.

In the end I don't think it really matters. The only potential problem is your third reason, which is when one player rolled poorly and has a character far below the others in terms of power. I tend to glance over the characters while they're being made and if I see one that looks significantly below the others, I have him re-roll.

All that said, I have considered point buy before, but if I do so I'd up it so that PCs were more heroic. Right now point buy and the standard array lead to above average individuals, but not exceptional or heroic ones. I'd probably go for something like: 18, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, and its equivalent in point-buy.

But as with everything, the bottom line is that it depends upon the specific campaign and its participants. I'd recommend using an ability generation method that as many folks are as happy with as possible. This is one instance, in my opinion, where the players' opinions matter just as much as the DMs. Why not present a few different options and put it to a vote?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I went with a compromise. I let everyone roll one set of stats, 4d6 drop lowest, in order. Meaning you didnt assign where the stats were, the first score rolled was Strength, the second Con, etc. After 6 arrays were created, you could use ANY of those, or a modified point buy. So no one's stats were automatically worse than anyone else's, as they could choose to use the same array. It worked out quite well, with the resulting organic feel from rolling, but still leaving the option to be balanced against your peers.

 

[delericho]

Over the years I've bounced through a great many stat generation methods - random rolls, point buy, standard arrays, playing cards. In all that time, I've never managed to find one that I've been really happy with long-term.

In the end, I decided to stop worrying about it, give the player a three-way choice, and get on with the game. Which has served me in good stead for a couple of campaigns now (in 3e and SWSE now; I'll be trying it with 5e soon).

The methods I'll be offering are:

- Fixed array: 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8
- Random roll, 4d6 drop lowest. Reroll if (and only if) your highest score is 13 or less, or your net modifier is +0 or less.
- 28-point buy, using the costs given in the 3e DMG.

If rolling, the dice must be rolled in front of the DM, and once the first die falls you're committed to sticking with it.

With regard to the OP's blog post: I agree about "false gambling". Funnily enough, though, I've avoided it thus far - if a player chooses to roll, I expect them to play the character that results in good faith, and thus far I've not been disappointed. Maybe I've just been lucky.

As regards super-characters and sidekicks, I don't see either as a problem in isolation - the swing tends to be small enough, and niche protection strong enough, that it tends not to matter. Where I have seen a problem is in the unlucky case where you get both a super-character and a sidekick in the same group. Again, I've been lucky enough not to have that problem since I started offering the three-way choice.

(Before I started offering the choice, I never used random rolls for anything other than one-shots. I have played in a game which did use them, and which had both the super-char and the sidekick. That might have been a problem, except that the campaign collapsed after one session anyway, for unrelated reasons.)

 

[CapnZapp]

If you don't use feats, roll for stats any way you like.

But if you do use feats, I VERY STRONGLY advise you to not allow starting scores above 15 before racial modifiers.

Feel free to still use random rolls, as long as there is no way to roll a 16 or higher.

You'll thank me later...

 

[delericho]

I went with a compromise. I let everyone roll one set of stats, 4d6 drop lowest, in order. Meaning you didnt assign where the stats were, the first score rolled was Strength, the second Con, etc. After 6 arrays were created, you could use ANY of those, or a modified point buy.

That's a pretty good approach. A variant I've seen has everyone roll one stat, going around the table until 6 have been generated, and then everyone uses that as a standard array.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

That's a pretty good approach. A variant I've seen has everyone roll one stat, going around the table until 6 have been generated, and then everyone uses that as a standard array.

I like that approach. First, players are treated with fairness, and you have no risk of OP and sidekick in the same party. I also enjoy the sense of "shared fate" it creates among group members. It doesn't solve my issue with the fact that the game is apparently balanced to be played with standard array characters, but this second part is easier for DMs to solve.

 

[Shiroiken]

I, as a Player, generally don't like to roll ability scores, because I normally roll like crap (I've actually played the minimum value character in 3E). As a DM, however, I've found that many players REALLY like to roll.

With the wrong group, power disparity is a problem (I was a player in a game that fell apart after one session because a player had three 18s, and lorded it over the others). With the right group this really isn't an issue, so long as you don't alter the challenges towards the stronger characters. In 5E, I've found it's even less of an issue than previous editions, because the d20 is almost always the primary factor.

Because of this, I allow rolling in my games. I've used two options: roll and keep, or roll then array. In roll and keep, you are forced to keep your rolls, no matter how bad. It's a risk you take for choosing to roll, and the players accept this if they choose to roll. Roll then array means that everyone rolls, but may choose to opt for the array afterwards. This prevents anyone from being too weak, while allowing for some really good rolls. I personally detest point buy, as does most of my group, so we never allow that option.

 

[delericho]

It doesn't solve my issue with the fact that the game is apparently balanced to be played with standard array characters...

It may be balanced assuming that, but the WotC designers must have known people would use random rolled ones sometimes. If doing so would break the game, they wouldn't have offered it as an option without some sort of warning.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy chance and randomness in my games. It would seem, however, that the rolls you make for stats could be of a overblown importance compared to the rest of the advancement of the character. Between that and the fact you could have PCs with huge differences (thereby reducing the fun factor for some), I would never do random stats. Haven't in a long long time, and my PCs are usually pretty balanced in builds.