D&D 5E How do you handle randomly rolling for stats

[ichabod]

It is an universal aspect of risk assessment and valuation.

That risk is risky, yes. That it "needs" to be rewarded, no.

 

[CleverNickName]

I had a player beg me to let his character start with an 18 in one ability score of his choice. I told him I would allow it, but he also had to start with a 3 in one ability score of my choice.

He passed on the offer.

(We were freshmen in high school.)

 

[ECMO3]

Wow! Through all of 1e I could never find a DM who allowed that method, including me! It was too broken. Do your players have to pick class first, or can they just rank the stats and pick a class after rolling?

Yes in AD&D 1E this is an official method of rolling stats in the Unearthed Arcana book (note Unarthed Arcana was an official rulebook in 1e). There are 2 differences in the official 1E method and the 5E method I use:

1. There were 7 stats in late 1E (the six we have now plus Comeliness) and the last stat in the array was 3d6

2. The Player could not rank the stats and choose which stat was most important, the rank was fixed based on the class they chose. So for a 1E Paladin for example it was Charisma that was getting 9 dice (I think?) and the player could not choose Strength instead.

When I use it for 5E the players must choose their class (but not race) BEFORE they roll. They can multiclass at level 2 if desired, but first level they play what class they chose before they rolled.

I've never had a player that rolled so low they could not multiclass after they added racial bonuses, if I did I might make a minimum of 12 (before race bonuses) to the two highest ranked stats. I have just never had anyone roll that low with 9 and 8 dice respectively.

 

[ECMO3]

Wow. Not a method I ever would have allowed unless I was really wanting a super-powered campaign. I don't remember that at all from 1e. Was it in a later supplement?

It does generate heroic level characters. More importantly you get high-intelligence fighters and high-strength Wizards while also being good at the stats you are supposed to be good at.

When I am doing that I usually play with 3-4 PCs in the party, so while the PCs themselves are "OP" the party generally isn't OP.

The biggest difference between the RAW methods is in the "dump stats" your prime stat is typically 18 with racial bonuses. Sometimes 19 or even 20, but sometimes 16 too (rarely lower than that with racial bonuses). Having a fighter or Wizard with a 19 strength/intelligence is not that much different than a fighter or wizard with a 16 at 1st level and at higher level RAW PCs will have it too.

On the other hand having a Fighter or Wizard with random high abilities elsewhere though does make for more immersive flavorful play as the PCs are far less cookie cutter.

I am not sure if the following character is public, but here is one fighter we are playing right now that rolled this way, he rolled strength and constitution first and rolled them relatively low (15 and 14 before bonuses). He rolled Intelligence last and got an 18 on 4d6 drop 1 (note he chose a feat at 4th level so he still has a 16 Strength):

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[pete284]

We always use the standard array, early on we had occasions where a couple of players rolled really bad, so array has stuck.

 

[Horwath]

After exploring many mathematically precise arrays:

Standard Array.


But for a future campaign, I am considering: 13, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10

No negatives to worry about, and start off "typical". Friendlier for Bounded Accuracy design too.


As long as everyone in the party has the same array, it doesnt really matter which one it is.

what a naughty word array of ability scores...

If I wanted to play myself in D&D, I would go LARPing.

 

[Ogre Mage]

All the players roll a set of six stats and then the group votes on which set the entire party will use. That way everyone is using the same numbers but the arrangement of the stats is up to each individual player.

 

[CapnZapp]

maybe, but sometimes the reward for being risky is just the fun of being risky!

Absolutely - and thrill-seeking people do not need rational arguments.

Others, like me, do. Asking players to choose between a fun risky thing and a predictable AND statistically better option is, in my view, a trap.

All it does is try to lure players into taking the inferior option; presenting the risk as something desirable, when it (in most cases) only opens you up for rolling badly.

What I'm saying here is that my concern is not primarily about math-savvy players. I'm arguing thrill seekers deserve better than getting failed by the rules.

Taking a risk should and need to come with a reward commensurate with that risk. In my opinion, a game that fails to couple a risky choice with an appropriate bonus (over whatever the non-risky choice gives) is an inferior game design. It makes me suspect the writer simply isn't sufficiently versed in statistics.

 

[CapnZapp]

That risk is risky, yes. That it "needs" to be rewarded, no.

Risk is a cost. Many people aren't good at realizing this.

Presenting risk as the fun choice, where the fun is the reward, is equivalent to hiding that risk. (Cue every lottery and casino ever)

Hiding and/or not compensating for cost is an unfortunate design decision in a role-playing game.

 

[Distracted DM]

All the players roll a set of six stats and then the group votes on which set the entire party will use. That way everyone is using the same numbers but the arrangement of the stats is up to each individual player.

How many players do you have?
Do you recall the stat arrays that the last couple games used?