Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9060967" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Shouldn't the SD be that of the base roll (so, presumably, 4d6 drop lowest, which has SD 2.85 according to Anydice) times the square root of the number of dice rolled? (Technically, you add the SDs in quadrature, but when all of them are the same, this is equivalent to multiplying by the square root of the numbers so used.) SD is the square root of variance, but the former is what is actually useful for describing the range of a set of dataThe center of the data for 4d6k3 is 12.24, and (thankfully) that does just multiply by six for the stat total. So we get 73.44 average, SD 2.85×√6=6.98. Within reasonable tolerance, that means overall stat totals between 59 and 88, a range of 29...which is exactly why things can be so problematic with character stats. A difference of 20 points is quite possible, and yet that translates to anywhere between a maximum of +12 higher total modifiers (e.g. {11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10} vs {14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14}) and a minimum of +7 (e.g. {12, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10} vs {15, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13}.) Of course, few things are going to result in such perfectly aligned results, so something in the middle, around +9, is reasonable as the potential spread between the lowest and highest rolling players.This is where the rules for cutting off the bottom of the distribution come into play. 5e, like most games that propose rolling stats (including old school D&D, believe it or not!) includes rules for throwing out unacceptably weak results. If the highest stat is not at least 14, or the sum of modifiers is (IIRC) not positive, throw it out and start over. But that is in fact met by a slight rearragement of the examples I proposed: {14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10}. So the minimum modifier gap remains unchanged. The maximum does fall, however, from +12 to +11. Which would seem to ideally position +9 as the "reasonable gap between best and worst rolls" amount.If I were going to use this method, I would do the following.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players roll their stats (six lots of 4d6k3) as normal and add any racial bonuses. Reroll any set that has no result of at least 14.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players sum the total of their modifiers, and separately count the total number of odd scores they have.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If every player has a modifier total no more than 2 less than the highest player's total, do nothing--these scores are already good...or at least good enough.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If any player has a modifier total outside that range, they get free feats, one for every 2 points by which their total falls short.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If any player receives feats, they should also count their total number of odd ability scores. If they have more than two odd ability scores, they may (if they wish) also pick one from a list of flavorful "half" feats (e.g. Actor, Chef, Keen Mind.)</li> </ol>This method probably under-values feats (after all, you only get one for every 4-6 points by which the best rolled stats exceed your own, and get nothing at all for a difference of up to 6 points), but I figure the ability to select what you want makes the difference. I wish I didn't have to enforce a rigid list for point 5, but unfortunately, Elven Accuracy, one of the most powerful feats in 5e, is a half feat and must thus be accounted for.With the racial bonuses, especially after Tasha's, having that guaranteed minimum highest stat of 14 means you always get at least one 16, so whatever your prime stat is, it's decent. And if you somehow managed to get a negative sum of modifiers, well, you'll probably be rolling in feats.</blockquote>

Verification