D&D General How Do You "Roll Up" Ability Scores?

[billd91]

Method of stat generation is something we generally leave up to the GM in our groups. Some games go with point buy, some rolling.

For D&D, I much prefer rolling and I've experienced a few rolling methods:
1) 4d6dL, arrange to suit has traditionally been our most common
2) 4d6dL for 2 arrays of 6 results, pick the preferred array, arrange to suit is what I'm currently using for my Age of Worms campaign.
3) 4d6dL, everybody puts their arrays in a pool and each player can share an array out of the pool (tends to push stats kind of high, but give everyone the option to take the best array(s)
4) 4d6dL until you get at least a 16, then take the next 5 results. One of my DMs used that method. Guaranteed a 16+ for one stat - wasn't a bad method, particularly back in the 2e days

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, not really. The attribute bonuses are not a significant part of the balance intraparty,

Um, yes they are. They contribute to basically all of your rolls.

and the game again works fine even when one player is "behind" or "ahead" here.

Will it work "fine" for the player whose chracter is behind? Maybe, but that is pretty subjective.

My point was that it just seems weird to me to intentionally create such intraparty imbalance when you don't have to. Why don't randomise everyone's starting level while you're it?

 

[Charlaquin]

Point buy always. I used my houseruled point buy for my current campaign, but the important part is that no randomness is involved. And same with the HP, those are just the average too.

I really find it bizarre that people are fine with randomising the character power. Makes all those balance threads seem a bit silly, as it seems the first thing most players do is to intentionally throw the balance out of the window when they start creating a character...

It makes more sense in the context of a game where the expectation is high character mortality rate. In such a game, each player is likely to go through a lot of characters, so balance between any two individual characters is far less important than balance averaged out across many characters.

 

[Parmandur]

Um, yes they are. They contribute to basically all of your rolls.


Will it work "fine" for the player whose chracter is behind? Maybe, but that is pretty subjective.

My point was that it just seems weird to me to intentionally create such intraparty imbalance when you don't have to. Why don't randomise everyone's starting level while you're it?

There are 6 attributes. The odds of rolling badly in all 6 are rather low, and if that happens a Mulligan would seem appripriste...but I'd be inclined to go with it, personally. See what happens. A PC only needs to be decent (not even good!) at 1 or 2 attributes to contribute their role to the party. The balance already accounts for the disparity that is possible, nothing particularly odd about it.

The original point of 3d6 in order was to create a realistic spread of PC abilities per the general population, because the game was designed by insurance adjusters and that's how they thought about things. We have 4d6dL assign as desired superheros now, but that's how the game evolved.

 

[Parmandur]

It makes more sense in the context of a game where the expectation is high character mortality rate. In such a game, each player is likely to go through a lie or characters, so balance between any two individual characters is far less important than balance averaged out across many characters.

True and intraparty balance has to do with roles more than optimized numbers. A mediocre Cleric can fulfill the role of healer within a party. And the game is balanced around assuming non-optimized characters.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

My group has done the same rolling method for many years. Roll 4d6 7 times, reroll any ones and then drop the lowest number in each set, then drop the lowest set to get your six stat that you place where ever you want.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Frankly, if the second player who rolled the +3 whines about it, I'll tell them to leave if they don't like it.

How... "friendly" of you. Besides, I wasn't talking about anyone excessively "whining" about it. I was speaking to how it REWARDS a player who rolls low and PUNISHES a player who rolls average. That just seems backwards to me.

They knew the rules going in, all of them do, and whining about it won't help. Next time, don't roll if you don't like how it works.

Again, no one needs to "whine" for something to be unfortunate.

Also, if a player is that focused on the bonuses to enjoy the game, they need a hard reset on their priorities when it comes to playing.

Nor does anyone need to be "focused on bonuses" to think that it sucks to let one player roll twice for their character and another only once. Besides, if you're truly not focused on bonuses, then what's wrong with an array? If you're not "focussed on bonuses" what difference does it make if everyones are the same? Or if the person who rolled low has to KEEP the low roll (now THERE is where you'll probably find your "whining". Why does THAT guy get to have his whining listened to but not the other guy?

Anyway, it really is completely fair, because they all know it going in.

Knowing about inequality does not make things equal.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My group has done the same rolling method for many years. Roll 4d6 7 times, reroll any ones and then drop the lowest number in each set, then drop the lowest set to get your six stat that you place where ever you want.

Sounds like it would generally skew pretty high. (Which is fine if you like that sort of thing - I'm absolutely not trying to tell people what to do).

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Sounds like it would generally skew pretty high. (Which is fine if you like that sort of thing - I'm absolutely not trying to tell people what to do).

Yeah, my group prefers having a better chance at getting higher stats because we tend to play a bit more optimally and with greater combat and challenge threats, as well as having a ton of feat options that we like to use to diversify our characters. At the same time, everyone in group still like having the stat results be random which is why we still roll instead of using an increased stat array or point buy.

It's not for everyone, but it has worked for us.

 

[ezo]

How... "friendly" of you. Besides, I wasn't talking about anyone excessively "whining" about it. I was speaking to how it REWARDS a player who rolls low and PUNISHES a player who rolls average. That just seems backwards to me.

Yeah, yeah, friendly smendly...

It doesn't REWARD and PUNISH as you seem to think. It potentially does it, certainly, if you wish, but the player who rolled -1 might then get a total of 3 as well. And neither of them will be great compared to the player who rolls +11 or something.

But, again, if your group agrees to roll 4d6-L then you are accepting that sometimes it'll be great, and other times it'll suck (if those numbers are that important to you). Part of what makes that system appeal to players is the randomness and luck that comes into it. Just as if you do 3d6 in order, etc.

Again, no one needs to "whine" for something to be unfortunate.

And yet, they so often do...

Nor does anyone need to be "focused on bonuses" to think that it sucks to let one player roll twice for their character and another only once. Besides, if you're truly not focused on bonuses, then what's wrong with an array? If you're not "focussed on bonuses" what difference does it make if everyones are the same? Or if the person who rolled low has to KEEP the low roll (now THERE is where you'll probably find your "whining". Why does THAT guy get to have his whining listened to but not the other guy?

There's nothing wrong with an array. I mean, look at the system we're using now in our game. Everyone gets +7 total modifiers....

If your table can't agree on a method, that is something else. I was under the presumption that if you are rolling, you're ok with that and everyone does it. The one thing I'm not a fan of is different methods used in the game session 0.

Knowing about inequality does not make things equal.

Well, really there is no inequality, which is my point. You had equal chances as everyone else rolling.