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

[Thurbane]

You are looking at skewed statistics. I am certain even those who are the most down on rolling have known a number of people who were considered to be perfectly honest. So the "ALL" part is surely not true.

But who would feel a need to vent about the honest ones? Where is the fun in that?

When I've got a spare hour or two, I'll dig up all the various comments here that some posters have made saying almost exactly to the effect of what I stated.

Certainly, I don't think that all, or even most, point buy advocates think that way, but I can assure that some (vocal ones) do...

 

[Hypersmurf]

His initiative bonus was somewhere around +20.

I need to look into Nerveskitter - I think we can get our 3rd-level rogue up to +17... (it might be legal to call it +18, if the Marshal's Dexterity aura and the Dragon Shaman's Senses aura stack, but I'm assuming not for the moment... so with just his Dex, Improved Init, and the Marshal's aura, it's sitting at +12 right now.)

-Hyp.

 

[RFisher]

In my groups, good ability scores just have never been that big of a factor. The player of the PC with 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 6 (about the lowest you can have without triggering the re-roll rule) always has just as much fun as the player of the PC with 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15.

(I don't know that I've actually seen scores that good in recent times, but we've probably had a few that were close. Of course, back in my AD&D days some of my groups used methods under which scores that high weren't so surprising because we wanted at least one score that didn't fall in the wide no-modifier gaps. (^_^))

So, we don't mind trading sometimes playing low scores for the chance to sometimes getting to play high scores.

& that may also be why we don't have a lot of cheating. You hope for higher scores just because it's fun, not because you feel you need them to be effective, because there's plenty of precedence for low-score PCs having been very effective in the group.

But...I do think it is important that people match their score generating method with their personal tolerance. If you don't want the potential for PCs to have a 3, then don't choose a method--like 4d6k3--that can generate a 3. Switch to 4d4+2 or 2d6+6 or whatever.

Or use point-buy. Personally, I'd rather switch to an entirely point-based system where I can sacrifice in other areas (skills, &c.) to have higher attributes overall or choose lower attributes overall in order to be stronger in other areas. But, I'd rather use point-buy that to listen to people complain about their ability scores being too low or someone else's being to high. (^_^)

 

[Zustiur]

On a related topic -
Does anyone have a list of how the various dice rolling methods equate to in points buy?
That is, if you look at the statistics, how many points do you expect from:
a) 3d6 six sets
b) 4d6 drop lowest. six sets
c) 4d6 drop lowest. seven sets, drop lowest
d) 4d6 reroll 1s, drop lowest. Six sets

Zustiur.

 

[Thunderfoot]

No, it's true you can get lucky. I call even one 18 very lucky. An 18 and 17, also very lucky, but very possible.

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

While I agree that the circumstances behind your personal predicament is suspect, I have seen the following two sets rolled on the same night by two separate people using different dice:

The first: 18,15,15,17,16,17 (That ended up being a paladin)
The second: 18,15,18,13,18,9 (This ended up being a dwarven fighter/cleric)

Those rolls were made under the 1E 3d6 in order rule (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). Impossible, I think not; improbable, absolutely, however, I have come to learn that the improbable is usually very likely with some certain people.

My daughter rolled up a sorcerer the other day her rolls (4d6 drop the lowest in order):
15, 16, 14, 17, 16, 18, and yes, I watched her do it. My son came in second at the die rolling championships at GenCon this year (though he should have won because the other guy faulted.) so, yes, there are just those folks that exist. I cannot vouch for your 'friend' but I have met them, raised them and seen them first hand; as an average roller at best...they make me sick.

 

[coyote6]

I forget the method (it was very generous), but I rolled a disgustingly high set of stats for a character in a game Treebore ran; it happens.

Also, as far as players rolling sets & discarding 'em til they get one they like -- it can be annoying, but then I remember that the player could be getting their rerolls the old fashioned way: by playing to get their character killed, so they can roll a new character. That would be even more annoying, IMO.

I think the next time I have players roll up stats, I'll have everyone in the group do it together, one set each -- and then take the best stats, figure out how much the stats would cost in point buy, and let everyone spend that many points.

(Of course, I I have no idea if or when I'll have a group roll up new D&D characters; the desire to start a brand new D&D game is very low.)

 

[RFisher]

On a related topic -
Does anyone have a list of how the various dice rolling methods equate to in points buy?
That is, if you look at the statistics, how many points do you expect from:

Whatever method you come up with for creating a correspondence, I don't think it will really be very meaningful. Point-buy & rolling are different beasts...too different.

(Unless you're a statistician, but then you'll be dealing with a bunch of numbers--ranges, means, modes, standard deviations, &c.--not just a lone quantity of point-buy points. (^_^))

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Point Buy is boring and seems to produce clones of the same character.

Except rolled characters basically look the same as point buy.

The point buy character has stats placed in an optimum order and so does the rolled character.

The ability to place stats in the desired order causes this predictability. The rolling/point buy merely define what values are plugged into the formula.

****

Ultimately I think the issue at hand is larger than merely the two-camp option that some present it as.

The hard coded power disparity of rolling, i.e. the possibility of all 18s coupled with the possibility of gimpdom, make that system a poor default. The complete predictability of point buy does sacrifice the better aspect of rolling - the subtle differences and slight unusualnesses in character.

I think an option allowing a roll of balanced arrays could be the path to take. MAD would need to be addressed, in that every character would need no more than 3 good stats and every array would deliver acceptable results.

Whatever the system, I think the promise of all 18s needs to be finally thrown out the window. Such disruptive characters have no place in a cooperative game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The point buy character has stats placed in an optimum order and so does the rolled character.

Not if you roll in order. You end up with some interesting PCs that way, too. My current OD&D game as a Fighting Man with Cha as his highest stat, and an Elven F/MU with Wis as her highest. (However, ability bonuses in OD&D do not have the same weight as in later editions.)

 

[Harmon]

Its that reason why when I GM I hand out a stat block- "place the numbers in the order you want, otherwise its what you get." The Players that normally rolled three 18s or extra ordinary stats were the ones that complained, the others just went with it.