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

[FitzTheRuke]

I understand how you feel, but to me that really is just how it goes sometimes. Different priorities, I suppose. The world and what we do in it matters more to me than how kick-butt my PC is, as a player or a DM.

Oh me too - I personally don't like power-characters any more than I like useless ones. It's another reason why I don't mind the array - Abilities just don't matter all that much. They mean a bit about your character, but not a lot. What stories you tell with them means a heck of a lot more.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I prefer when all players are working from an equitable set of numbers. While this can most easily be achieved with point buy it is also possible with rolling. 4d6 drop lowest placed and those scores are used for all PCs instead of everyone rolling individually.

 

[Lanefan]

You are making a new PC for a D&D game. How do you generate ability scores for the character? Why do it that way? Is it your choice, or the GM's? If you are the GM, how do you require players "roll up" scores? Why?

In either case, does it change based on campaign or edition, or does your table(s) do it the same way no matter what?

For our 1e-adjacent games* we've done 5d6k3, placed, since forever. There's no other option.

* - one campaign modified this a bit but the end result is pretty much the same.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like to ask people who play 4d6-L:

Do you ALWAYS ALWAYS keep the first set you roll, or do you have some kind of "oh that's okay, roll again" when you inevitably roll crappy?

If no stat is above 13 OR if the average of all six stats is less than 10.0 you can chuck it and reroll. With our system this is rare, but it happens.

Oh, and rolls are always done in the presence of others.

This is the biggest reason why I don't "trust" rolling. I played decades with 4d6-L but there was ALWAYS someone who rolled like crap who got to reroll.

The part where I found that offensive, and finally gave up on it, was when someone rolled an "okay" character and was forced to keep it, and another player rolled a "garbage" character (like highest stat 11 or something) and then got to reroll and wound up with a powerhouse. How is that fair to the guy stuck with the "meh but fine" character?

When I started playing 3e, the first character I rolled up had amazing stats - the lowest was 12, the highest 18, and the average was a bit under 15; his net bonus total was, I think, +11 or +12. The second character I rolled up barely got over the you-may-reroll limit - low of 7, high of 15, average about 11, and her net bonus total was +1 or maybe +2.

Guess which one lasted longer, and it wasn't even close?

Hint: if you guessed the first one, try again. That second one lasted seven real-world years and might well be the most fun-to-play character I've ever had. The first one hung on for maybe two years, three at most (we were each running two at once, as it was a pretty lethal campaign).

 

[Lanefan]

On reflection, I'm going to take this back - Can someone (hopefully a neutral third party) explain to me how getting to reroll until you get an acceptably good result could in any way be considered exactly the same, probability-wise to rolling once and accepting what you get?

Because while I understand that every INDIVIDUAL time you roll, the chances of getting any given result remain the same, but if you're able to discount all the bad rolls and only take the good ones, how does that NOT effect your results? That makes no sense to me.

The end result, if run enough times, should be a bell curve with the lower end chopped off.

Your odds of where you land within the "valid" part of the bell curve aren't affected by whether or not - or how many times - you landed within the not-valid part and had to try again, as no matter what you do you can only land in the valid part once.

 

[Irlo]

I'll generally be happy to go along with whatever method the group decides without complaint. For 5e and 3e, I prefer predetermined arrays or point buy. For 1e or 2e, I prefer rolling -- either in order, if everyone is doing it that way, to see what falls into my lap or placed, if the players are aiming for specific character classes. As a DM, I encourage groups to use arrays rather than rolling, because I know some players can have the fun sucked out of the game with relatively poor results.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I'm sorry, but you are coming here and telling people they are being unfair when they are not. You are telling me that I have been unfair when I haven't.

I think we all need to remember that "fair" means different things to different people.

For example: to some "fair" may mean "with equal probability". To others, "fair" may mean "equitable". And the are other takes on the word as well.

Consider - why is the rule that the person who didn't make the minimum gets an entire reroll? Why don't they reroll one stat at a time until they meet the minimum? Why don't they get the same array as rolled by the player who rolled the minimally acceptable character? Or, if someone fails to roll an acceptable character, everybody gets to roll again? Or why not just allow everybody to roll two characters, and they each get to keep the best? Those would all be different versions of "fair".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If no stat is above 13 OR if the average of all six stats is less than 10.0 you can chuck it and reroll. With our system this is rare, but it happens.

Oh, and rolls are always done in the presence of others.

When I started playing 3e, the first character I rolled up had amazing stats - the lowest was 12, the highest 18, and the average was a bit under 15; his net bonus total was, I think, +11 or +12. The second character I rolled up barely got over the you-may-reroll limit - low of 7, high of 15, average about 11, and her net bonus total was +1 or maybe +2.

Guess which one lasted longer, and it wasn't even close?

Hint: if you guessed the first one, try again. That second one lasted seven real-world years and might well be the most fun-to-play character I've ever had. The first one hung on for maybe two years, three at most (we were each running two at once, as it was a pretty lethal campaign).

Yeah, lest anyone think that I've ever on this thread advocated for higher stats, Here's a quick story:

Fitz the Ruke (you may note my avatar) is my all time favorite character of mine. He was absolutely rolled, and his highest ability was a 14 (either DEX or CHA, I can't remember which. The other of the two was a 13. The rest of his abilities were lower).

His best mate, in the same campaign, Calahan, was a WIZARD with a 17 STR. Calahan was quite seriously pretty much better at nearly everything than Fitz. He was a better fighter AND a better wizard (Fitz couldn't cast a spell at all, but he used to pretend to be able to summon a rat. It was a trained rat that Fitz kept on his person and used sleight-of-hand to produce.)

I will absolutely agree that Ability Scores have nothing to do with Great Characters!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, if the GM specifically says what to do, well, that's what we do...though it might also be a respectful "alright, sounds like this game isn't for me" moment depending on what is expected.

But when I have even the remotest say in the matter, I take point-buy. 100% of the time.

The "samey stats" argument is, IMO, bunk. Of course stats are similar. Characters of a particular class SHOULD be overall similar. Most people who fight with big weapons should be strong, because if they aren't, they don't live very long. Most Wizards should be very intelligent because middling-Int Wizards reconsider their career. Etc.

It would be like complaining that if you looked at the statistical averages of Olympic gymnasts or PhD mathematicians, clear patterns would emerge. Of course there would be such patterns! You're only looking AFTER they've been sorted, not before.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I will absolutely agree that Ability Scores have nothing to do with Great Characters!

In the spirit of @Umbran reminding us that "fair" has multiple meanings, so does "great."

You had fun playing the character. For you, it was great.

For me, having to play a character like that would have been an anchor around my neck the entire game. I would feel like I was dead weight, hampering my friends, a constant liability. It would absolutely have put a damper on my fun and would have ensured that, whether he lived or died, whether he succeeded or failed, it would have been significantly less enjoyable.

Hence, for you, he was great. For me, he would have been terrible. And it would be exactly the same if I had rolled exceptionally well and everyone else hadn't--believe it or not, I would also feel bad playing Calahan. It's just that it would be guilt over feeling like I'm overshadowing everyone, rather than frustration because I feel like I'm being denied the chance to contribute meaningfully because ability roulette screwed me over. And yes, that exact thing (rolling stupidly well compared to everyone else) has actually harmed my experience of a game before. My luck is almost always bimodal: either I roll amazingly well, or I roll terribly. Almost never in the middle, where you would expect most rolls to be.

But the thing is? You can do what you did with that character in a point-buy game. It's just a conscious choice. I cannot choose to play stats other than the stats I've rolled in a game that requires rolling.

If you can do what you do either way, but I cannot do what I do in one way but can in the other, which is the reasonable choice for a game meant to support a variety of approaches to play?