If we all rolled the normal way for stats, how come he has three 18's?

[GlassJaw]

This is why I use point-buy for everything these days. The positives FAR outweigh any possible negatives.

 

[Dragon Snack]

In 5 groups over 10 campaigns using Point Buy I have rarely seen clones (there was one player who brought in the 'brother' of his dead character) - and I'm a Killer DM...

Plenty of players embrace the odd stats (as do I, when I can play).

Don't believe the hype.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't remember having cheaters at my gaming table, but if I catch some, I'll make sure I will myself cheat on the next session date.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There are 11 different classes in the PHB. Even if a stodgy DM forces the players to all use 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 to generate their PCs, there are easily at least two dozen highly viable PCs that are reasonably different from each other. That is the absolute worst case scenario.

If the PCs look cloned, it is because the player is in a creative rut and is fighting tooth & claw to stay there.

It is conceivable that rolling dice can help get the creative juices flowing again. But it is far more likely that the player will happily take whatever he rolls and dive right back into the rut.

I am skeptical that Krusk the Barbarian the XVIIth is meaningfully different from Krusk the Barbarian the XVIth just because the latest version has a 17 Str (instead of a 16) and a 10 Int (instead of a 12).

 

[Engilbrand]

I tend to roll really well for stats. I had a Barbarian with 4 16+, a 15 in Cha and a 13 in Int. Some of the other characters were buffed.
I don't like point buy. I've done it a few times, even in games that I've run. I like random stat rolls. Now, our rules were: 4d6, drop the lowest, 7 times. If the total bonus wasn't at least +7, you could roll again. We also occasionally just did 3 sets and chose the best.
The excuse of "But then some characters are better!" is just ridiculous. Of course some characters are better. It's a fact of life that some people are better than others. Not just in one or two areas, but in all areas. It's not unheard of to have a charismatic, intelligent football player and an intelligent but weak and socially awkward nerd. (Sound familiar?) Characters can be better at what they do and it gets to the point where you don't even notice the scores. Point buy tends to create a lot of characters with almost the same scores.

 

[Rothe]

It seems lucky, but my longest lasting character naturally rolled 18, 17, 16, 14, 14, 11 on 4D6 drop lowest arrange as like.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... to a dwarven fighter in 1e with a genuine 18/00.

A genuine 18/99 - dwarves had a lower maximum Str than humans.

-Hyp.

 

[Jhaelen]

But 13, 14, 15, 18, 18, 18 rolled in that order isn't lucky. It's impossible.

Ah, not really. It's actually quite achievable compared to, say, winning the jackpot in a state lottery.

You may have noticed, that eventually someone does win the jackpot in those lotteries (unless you're a fan of conspiracy theories and assume all of those incidents are fake).

I think, the topic of rolling stats vs. point-buy has already been beaten to death in other threads. I really cannot understand why there are still DMs around who insist on their players rolling for stats.

 

[Dice4Hire]

My FTF group went with rolling this time instead of point buy, and the results were not really even. I rolled best with a 16, 15, etc with every score being 12 or above. (7 rolls of 4d6) (36 point buy) But the other two rolled more poorly at about the 25-28 point buy level. Yes, I have a significant advantage, which is good for me, but if I were on the other side I would not like it much.

Point buy is good, but it tends to gt awful boring too.

 

[danbuter1]

I was in a game where we rolled the dice in front of everyone at character creation. One guy had no score below a 14, and several 18's. We all hated his character after that.