D&D General Normal Distribution Ability Scores

[Lanefan]

While they don't have a huge impact overall, higher scores strain believability for me when PCs have them all the time, and can become just as boring as low stats IME.

I'm not after strictly higher scores, I'm after more potential variability in scores.

Starting with a 6 or 7 in something can be every bit as fun as starting with an 18; and starting with one of each just rocks!

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The one campaign I had players do randomized "roll in order" ability scores, I used the playing card method and it worked really well for me.

Deck of 16 cards: 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8

I wonder how it would work with having a 9 card in there and just ignoring the whole "racial modifer" bit?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Well, if you really enjoy rolling, the best method I have found for creating a normal distribution is 15d2-12.

View attachment 380514
For PCs, roll 15d2-10 (AnyDice). This shifts the PCs to an average modifier of exactly +1, with a range of -3 to +5.

View attachment 380515

As you can see, for PCs you have (basically) the follow chances for the listed ability modifiers.
View attachment 380517

Edit: of course, you can still roll 18 or higher as a PC, but the chance of a +4 modifier is about 1 in 270, and +5 is less than 1 in 32000.

Inspired by your use of d2s I invented this method below that I am convinced shall satisfy even hardcore dice-skeptics.

15d1
14d1
13d1
12d1
10d1
8d1

Assign in any order.

 

[ezo]

Inspired by your use of d2s I invented this method below that I am convinced shall satisfy even hardcore dice-skeptics.

15d1
14d1
13d1
12d1
10d1
8d1

Assign in any order.

Sadly, it isn't anything close to a normal distribution method.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wonder how it would work with having a 9 card in there and just ignoring the whole "racial modifier" bit?

There's all kinds of combinations of twelve playing cards you can include if you have maximums and minimums you are looking to have. The only downside to using cards without species or background bonus modifiers (and just including higher cards instead) is that some players get stuck with odd high-number combinations or just lots of middle of the road arrays that you can't "fix" because you have no additional bonuses to add in (to perhaps raise a secondary or tertiary score to a higher modifier bonus for example.)

The one thing I do find though is that it is so incredibly easy to just "re-roll" stat arrays many, many times so you can "playtest" each card value combination of twelve cards to see what kinds of arrays you get. Throw in a 9 and take out a 5 for example? Shuffle and deal arrays ten, twenty times and you can see how often 17s show up for players and what the folks who flip 8s also get for their other scores.

The one thing I will say though is that the higher and lower the cards you include are... the more often you are seeing arrays that just luck out for certain individuals who get two really high stats... whereas the others all still end up with middle of the road numbers. The person who flips a 9/8 and a 7/7 (plus others) is much, much happier than the player who flips a 9/4, 8/6, 7/5, 7/5 series (for example).

 

[Bill Zebub]

My new favorite method:

• 3d6 straight down the line, in order
• You have the option of "inverting" all six of your scores: each one becomes the opposite (21 - X) of itself.

 

[Xeviat]

My new favorite method:

• 3d6 straight down the line, in order
• You have the option of "inverting" all six of your scores: each one becomes the opposite (21 - X) of itself.

Now that's interesting!

 

[ezo]

You have the option of "inverting" all six of your scores: each one becomes the opposite (21 - X) of itself.

Now that's interesting!

I think so, too. I might have to run some numbers to see what sort of arrays this creates.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The one campaign I had players do randomized "roll in order" ability scores, I used the playing card method and it worked really well for me.

Deck of 16 cards: 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8

Those are not 16 cards...

I am counting 10. You need at least 12 cards.

What about: 4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,8?

Those give the standard array if combined correctly. But chances are you won't get a 15...

Maybe put in a few more 7's...

I'd probably put in both 4's, a 7 and an 8.
And then for the remaining cards I'll use: 4,4,5,5,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7 and shuffle them and take 8 of them. Mix them with the carda above and then deal 6 pairs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Those are not 16 cards...

I am counting 10. You need at least 12 cards.

What about: 4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,8?

Those give the standard array if combined correctly. But chances are you won't get a 15...

Maybe put in a few more 7's...

I'd probably put in both 4's, a 7 and an 8.
And then for the remaining cards I'll use: 4,4,5,5,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7 and shuffle them and take 8 of them. Mix them with the carda above and then deal 6 pairs.

You are absolutely correct. When I was making the post I was just going off memory what I used and what I remembered was there being only a single of the highest number and one of the middle ones having one more than the others-- and apparently I didn't bother to count up my array when I posted it, LOL! Your 4/4/5/5/6/6/6/7/7/7/7/8 array is probably right on the money.