D&D General How Did You Generate Your Most Recent Character's Stats?

[Ramhorn]

I'm a fan of point buy, and the next time that I run I'm probably going to ask that all my group does the same.

I think that rolling for stats is fun, but I think it's very easy for players to get excited about getting very good rolls for stats, and as a DM not wanting to yuck their yum. But when it comes to creating challenging encounters or interesting skill challenges for them, a very high stat party can be difficult to challenge.

Point buy allows for a variety of classes to be viable and to have flaws. It's okay if players fail sometimes because they have the power of the party to fall back on.

 

[Umbran]

Some folks believe that all characters in the party need to be equally "good" at things (have equally good stats, in this case) for the players to have equal amounts of fun.

That has never been the case at my table, we're more of a "rising tide lifts all ships" sort of team, but I hear about it on the Internet a lot.

Er. You know, that "believe" you put in there reads as... judgey.

Like, you don't actually think their position has some sound basis in their experience, or something?

 

[CleverNickName]

Er. You know, that "believe" you put in there reads as... judgey.

Like, you don't actually think their position has some sound basis in their experience, or something?

Yeah, I can see from that point of view also.
I revised my post.

I'm not trying to be judgmental; I'm just trying to share my own experience also.

 

[Cadence]

Why do you care if another player gets high stats every game? It’s a collaborative game, your other party members having high stats is good for you, you don’t need to “keep up.”

I'm trying to reconcile this and things it is responding to with what I remember of several people's previous posts on ASIs and how a small bonus on a single stat was a huge deal to some players and made them feel sub-par about their characters compared to others at the table - and whether that was one reason ASIs were bad or whether folks should get over it.

My recollection is that the ASI posts ran counter to what has been posted on this thread by some on both sides.

In the spirit of the holidays*, I will avoid spending the next two hours digging up relevant quotes, and another two crafting a defense of my past statements vis-a-vis my views on this.

* Insert racing getting ready to head out the door for frantic last minute shopping.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you care if another player gets high stats every game? It’s a collaborative game, your other party members having high stats is good for you, you don’t need to “keep up.”

Maybe speak for yourself on this one.

There is more to collaborative games than just being present for group success. Perhaps you find that sufficiently satisfying, but it is not unreasonable for a gamer to also want their own contributions to the outcome to be significant, to get a suitable share of spotlight attention.

And, that can be difficult to get when there's a significant disparity between characters, be it in levels, build optimization, or stats.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, I can see from that point of view also.
I revised my post.

I'm not trying to be judgmental; I'm just trying to share my own experience also.

Yep. And yoru experience is fair. It just probably isn't universal.

This, to my mind, is the actual point of game balance. In a reasonably balanced game, mostly equitable shares of contribution and spotlight will be distributed by the action of play, with little to no effort on the GM's par to arrange for them to happen. But, as you add imbalance of one type or another, the more you'll tend to need the GM's hand on the scales to get an equitable result.

And, a skilled GM can do that most of the time. But with someone of middling skill, it can become contrived, or stilted, or obvious that the GM has added elements that don't actually matter to "give them something to do".

 

[AlViking]

I'm a fan of point buy, and the next time that I run I'm probably going to ask that all my group does the same.

I think that rolling for stats is fun, but I think it's very easy for players to get excited about getting very good rolls for stats, and as a DM not wanting to yuck their yum. But when it comes to creating challenging encounters or interesting skill challenges for them, a very high stat party can be difficult to challenge.

Point buy allows for a variety of classes to be viable and to have flaws. It's okay if players fail sometimes because they have the power of the party to fall back on.

I mentioned somewhere that our very first 5e campaign we used the heroic point buy from 3e for our stats and we decided it was a mistake, both for the players and the DM. Our stats were just too high and personally I didn't like feeling like I was a Marty Stu. From the DM side of things it does make it more difficult to challenge the party. There are things you can do but that's another thread.

 

[AlViking]

Assume for a moment you and your buddy get a new job. You're working together, get part of the profits the business makes as a bonus you find that you're both equally capable of doing the job. But your buddy? They get showered in praise by the boss, get better hours, better pay, they get better equipment to be more efficient at their job. There's no reason whatsoever for you not to get better equipment or treatment, it's just that the boss likes them better. I think it would bother most people.

They've done experiments with monkeys - do a simple task and get some cucumbers. They're happy to do it because they like the cucumbers. But while they like the cucumbers, they love grapes. If they see a monkey in the next cage doing exactly the same task but getting grapes instead of cucumbers? The monkey gets upset and I don't think humans are much different. You can watch a video on the subject here -

 

[DeviousQuail]

I did something not included in your list--it's the system I've been using in the 5e/ToV games I've been running for years.

Pick your stats, in the range of 6-18. They must be half-even, half-odd, and you can't have three the same. The total bonuses must not be higher than x. Do not apply any bonuses for heritage/species/background/lineage/whatever. (My x is pretty generous, because that leads to the sort of game I enjoy; you could set it to whatever, to get the sorts of characters you want.)

This is a cool setup I haven't seen before. Theoretically, an 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 15 is the highest possible if you allow a total bonus of +19. On the flip side 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9 has a total of -10 if you're a masochist. 5e's standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 comes in at +5, but would need to add +1 to one of the even numbers to make it legal. You could even allow taking a feat at the cost of reducing your total available bonus by +1.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is a cool setup I haven't seen before. Theoretically, an 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 15 is the highest possible if you allow a total bonus of +19. On the flip side 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9 has a total of -10 if you're a masochist. 5e's standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 comes in at +5, but would need to add +1 to one of the even numbers to make it legal. You could even allow taking a feat at the cost of reducing your total available bonus by +1.

I know at least one DM who will allow you to pick any stats you want, in any combination, so long as the total ability score bonus after any racial adjustment is +7.