Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dalamar" data-source="post: 9194393" data-attributes="member: 358">For shits and giggles, I used the same roller to make 50 sets of scores using 3d6. The averages and means for those sets ended up as:<code class="bbCodeInline">14,42 (14)  12,82 (13)  11,66 (12)  10,36 (10)  8,76 (9)  6,82 (7)</code>On average, this seems like it'd make for a playable character in 5e, though it definitely precludes playing any sort of MAD PC.The biggest issue I see is that the 3d6 method gave me 5 sets of scores where four of the scores had a negative modifier, and in none of these sets was the highest score even higher than a 14. This is in contrast to 3 sets where there were no scores with a negative modifier. I would not want to be the person with 13 11 9 9 9 7 or even 13 10 10 9 6 5, especially in a party with someone who got 17 14 14 12 12 11. Because chances are that they're at least equally good at the thing that I'm best at. I'm not sure I'd even feel great next to a party member with 13 13 12 12 11 10.And that gets to the discussion on if you have some lower bound where you allow rerolling the scores. In 3rd edition, if the ability modifiers for your scores (before racial modifiers) didn't add up to +1 or if your highest score wasn't at least 14, you had the option to reroll. Based on this cut-off point, the scores I rolled for 4d6-drop-lowest has three sets that could be rerolled (one from having a +0 total modifier, one from not having a 14, and one for meeting both criteria), and the scores rolled for 3d6 has 29 sets (15 of them meeting both criteria). Lowering the criteria to adding up to +0 or having at least a 13, there are still 17 sets (7 of which meet both criteria) that would allow rerolling.</blockquote>

Verification