D&D 5E meeting your 5e character: a 4d6 poll

[Remathilis]

We fudged. We always fudged. The idea was to get an decent, organic array but not be weak in your chosen field (aka have a decent prime req) so we tended to do a bit of "roll a 7th roll if your highest score was 14 or silently reroll that 5 you just got". We weren't slaves to the rolls; we wanted people to play the PC they wanted. As long as your didn't have multiple 18s or most scores above 15, we didn't care (that seemed true even if you did roll that well; most lowered uberhigh scores just as they bumped lower ones).

We did try Point-buy once in 3.5, and it didn't feel the same. Everyone's scores were perfect even numbers (since spending for an odd score is a waste) and most ended up something like (from memory) 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8, every time. When re rolled, we might end up 18, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, or 17, 15, 13, 12, 12, 10. Because the numbers looked different, they seemed more organic and forced some different level-up decisions (Do I bump an odd score for a boost, or devote two bumps to getting my prime higher?)

Between the two, I prefer the old system of bumping and fudging an organic array than balancing a point spread.

 

[tlantl]

I generally have the players roll 3 sets of stats and let them choose the one they want.

I can always adjust the monster's scores to match if I want. Sometimes they need an edge, sometimes I want one.

 

[john112364]

I've always like the 4d6 drop the lowest die method. We did this for years and always managed to have decent characters. Maybe not über but that's ok. Rarely did one PC's stats outshine every one else.

Though I have to say if we rolled for stats in my current group some of my players would have a seizure. Hmmm. I'm running the next play test game. I think I'm gonna make them roll and see what happens. Lol.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Really, the question is unanswerable. 5E is TWO YEARS away. If you have a crystal ball that demonstrates just how all of 5E goes together and how any given method of determining stats will mesh with those rules we'd all love to see it.

I've played a lot of different ways in the last 35+ years in BTB and house-ruled versions of Basic, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, 3E, 3.5... Used different approaches at different times for different reasons. How the heck should I know how ANY of them will work with 5E at this point?

I'll put it this way:
If 5E approaches the game in a manner most closely associated with the oldest versions of the Basic rules where part of the fun, part of the challenge of the game is to make the most of what you get and you can't always get what you want, then letting the chips fall is a method I have no issue with.

If the approach is more like, "Here's what WE think should be less frequently seen and more difficult to get classes which we've DESIGNED to be less frequently seen - but do what you want," then most certainly fudging will happen. Really, fudging will happen no matter what because there are no gaming police. Maybe some restrictive generation method will remain nominally in place and nominally enforced, but as DM I will simply whistle tunelessly and look away as players create the characters they WANT to play.

The two concepts I most definitely disagree with, and which would be a COLOSSAL waste of everyone's time, energy, and printed ink are the last two. A player should NEVER need or want to just keep rolling and rolling and rolling in order to qualify for or create an adequate rendition of a character. MAD character class construction is game-design FAIL - when the game fails to PROVIDE an attribute generation method which accommodates the needs of such classes in relation to others. And use of wild, crazy, insane methods to create uber-characters will happen (again, there are no gaming police) but there is EVERY reason for the game to be designed to avoid any such tendency.

Much of the spiral of outrageous methods can, IMO, be tracked back to 1E. 1E stated directly that a character should have two 15's to be "viable" as a PC, largely because it presented ability score charts which placed bonuses of any kind at that level. But then it presented only generation methods which utterly failed to reliably produce those two 15's... or required endless rerolls in order to get them... or required overpowered methods which would distort all the scores to that point... and those charts rendered the vast majority of middle-range scores quite meaningless.

I think they're a little smarter nowadays, but I suspect that like EVERY version of the game thus far the question of ability score generation will come AFTER everything else is done and not be an INTEGRAL part of it all as it ought to be.

The method itself means nothing without knowing how it works within the framework of the final rules.

 

[slobo777]

Played with rolling stats for many years, and dislike it now.

When I DM'd I forced rolling in the open, and granted "catch-up" bonuses to unlucky players, via a point system (you must have more than X bonuses, otherwise add +2 to stat of choice etc). Lucky players were just plain lucky though, no downward fudging to make it all equal.

I ended up hating rolling for stats as a player, because the group dynamics took over - some players simply had more Chutzpah, willingness to sail closer to outright cheating, and some DMs' tendency to do "holistic" fixing of stats (i.e. they'd eyeball the values and suggest re-rolls or ad-lib inconsistent fixes) which led to feelings of favoritism.

I transferred my dislike as a player to when I DMed, and ended up drifting to point-buy in stages, via my own math-based boosts to bad-luck rolling. I think that simply was parallel to seeing the same going on in contempory games rather than any inventiveness on my part.

 

[Victim]

We've been using various forms of point buy for a while.

 

[shamsael]

So there is alot of debate over rolling ability scores in 5e or point buy. My qustion is how many people let the dice fall were they may. In my experance die rolling over and over again just became too much.

I will say I had a player who always had atleast 1 18 when we rolled, and as a player i have seen some WAY over powered ways to roll (4d6 re roll 1's and 2's drop lowest, roll 9 numbers take the 6 best and arrange).

Maybe my experances are way off but they always come down to one of two, excepted cheatiingg, and out right crazy rolling

I was in a 3.5 game where the fighter had rolled 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 (in that order, somehow). It definitely made it tough for the rest of the party to stay relevant. I was punished heavily for playing a non-combat character with poor strength and constitution scores. Probably the worst game I've ever played in, from the whole fairness perspective.

 

[Dice4Hire]

My group has used arrays or point buy pretty much since day one.