D&D 5E Are you using 3d6 apply as rolled and if so can you share your experience?

[Wiseblood]

I have done it several times. I will probably do it again. I say that because I had fun. They weren’t joke characters. Some had decent scores.

In my experience, the more you have invested in creating a character the more things can impede your enjoyment. (Mind you this is not a guarantee.)

Imagine building a character to do something like being a cavalier riding a mighty steed. (Nothing more needs to be said.... nevertheless I will continue to explain) The character is built using the resources available but you still need more to fully realize your goal. Things needed might be feats, stats, equipment and so on... your survival is not guaranteed. The direction of the campaign could and will probably shift. My suboptimal characters will continue to be made because they exist IN the campaign not in an idealized solo creation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

some of the characters generated were decent or even good while others were virtually unplayable.

That's the real danger, in my mind. It's one thing if everybody has low ability scores, but because of the swinginess of 3d6 the range within the party will vary greatly. More power to the players if they don't mind, but it would bug a lot of people (and that doesn't make them bad people).

 

[Wiseblood]

True, but at the dining room table it’s not a tournament. As a group we can ease restrictions or roll new characters no big deal.

 

[iserith]

That's the real danger, in my mind. It's one thing if everybody has low ability scores, but because of the swinginess of 3d6 the range within the party will vary greatly. More power to the players if they don't mind, but it would bug a lot of people (and that doesn't make them bad people).

One way it might be presented to the players is that the dice will decide to some degree the "difficulty mode" at which they are playing this game - Easy Mode to Nightmare Mode, and whatever's in between that. Lower ability scores may further reinforce the need for increased player skill to compensate such as by coming up with plans and actions that mitigate uncertainty to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. Provided succeeding more than failing is the goal, one doesn't want to trust an ability check when the character is rocking a 6 in the respective ability score. Not without working to get that DC as low as possible and using resources to boost the roll as much as possible, anyway.

 

[Maestrino]

I tried it a month or two ago for a short session (we ran the Red Larch intro from POTA). We did 4d6 drop lowest, though.

Lowest stat I rolled was a 10 (in Wisdom). I actually wound up with a pretty decent bard. Went standard human and had an 18 in Charisma, decent strength for the occasional melee attack.

It was fun, because otherwise I probably would not have considered running a bard. It made for some fun shenanigans - our sorcerer wound up with both the highest charisma and highest strength of the party.

 

[Oofta]

Just to follow up: if I was to do this (and it would only be for a short term campaign) I'd probably roll 1 set of numbers and then have everybody randomly assign the sequence.

I've just seen huge disparities in the past. With 1 person with abysmal scores and another with multiple 18s and no low scores.

Again, some people might have fun with low numbers because they like the challenge. In my admittedly limited experience, the people who enjoyed it most were the ones that rolled well. Even long ago in an edition far far away where 3d6 was the standard and only way of rolling we just figured that the guy with the low scores would stay home on the farm.

 

[Maestrino]

To mitigate the big stat swing, add on either the Matt Colville rule (at least two stats 15 or higher) or the Matt Mercer (grand total has to be at least 70) or else you re-roll the entire set.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did it once. My players liked the idea of having to build their characters around the stats they rolled, instead of assigning stats to suit characters they had already decided to build. They were less keen on the possibility of a terrible set of rolls, but this was mitigated somewhat by the thought that “if I roll crappy stats, the character probably won’t live long anyway and then I’ll get to try for a better character.” Kind of like a roguelike. That campaign didn’t last terribly long, but for unrelated reasons. The players actually enjoyed it quite a bit while it lasted. I would have liked to have seen how they felt after a longer time playing that way.

 

[iserith]

I did it once. My players liked the idea of having to build their characters around the stats they rolled, instead of assigning stats to suit characters they had already decided to build. They were less keen on the possibility of a terrible set of rolls, but this was mitigated somewhat by the thought that “if I roll crappy stats, the character probably won’t live long anyway and then I’ll get to try for a better character.” Kind of like a roguelike. That campaign didn’t last terribly long, but for unrelated reasons. The players actually enjoyed it quite a bit while it lasted. I would have liked to have seen how they felt after a longer time playing that way.

Yeah, it's just a different mindset really. As you say, not about designing a concept and seeing how it goes. Rather it's like being handed strengths and weaknesses by dint chance then having to work to maximize those strengths and mitigate the weaknesses while confronting things most people fear to face. Sounds like a familiar story. I find it to be rather fun, though I haven't done 3d6 in D&D 5e.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Haven't used 3d6 in order since AD&D.

My favorite initial stat generation method currently is roll 4d6 drop lowest five times. Keep track of those low five dice that were dropped. The best 3 of those become your sixth stat. Put the scores where you like. Chances are you have one ability that's pretty dang low - which makes for some interesting stat arrays, roll playing opportunities, and reliance on your party members to make up for your deficiency(ies). Pretty sure I got that idea from one of these threads a few months back, but I sadly cannot recall who proposed it to give appropriate credit where it is due.