Rolling Abilities

[PHGraves]

My group enjoys rolling. To them, point buy just seems too sterile.

Strange, though - nobody had any issues with using the static array for their RPGA characters. The group unanimously opted for it over point buy.

 

[AverageTable]

And why is random better? Because its a game, and more specifically to me, its an improvisational storytelling game, and way more fun to roll the dice, and hope for good rolls, and deal with bad rolls, and improvise the story as the successes and failures rack up.

Yes, when dealing with short-term effects with short-term consequences.

A lucky attack roll only has an immediate, short-term benefit. Its consequences, in the greater scheme of things, are negligible since they will be balanced out by just as many unlucky attack rolls.

Similarly, an unlucky attack roll only has an immediate, short-term penalty. Its consequences, in the greater scheme of things, are negligible since they will be balanced out by just as many lucky attack rolls.

There is, however, an ENORMOUS difference between this:

rolling attributes.
And rolling hp.

and this:

And rolling to hit.
And rolling damage.
And rolling skill checks, (take 10--bah!).

The latter group is of the kind described above. Such rolls concern short-term effects with short-term consequences.

The former, however, are completely and totally different. When you roll ability scores or hit points you are basing loooooong-term effects and loooooong-term consequences on single highly random and highly variable rolls whose conseqences will carry on-and-on-and-on-and-on-and-on throughout the rest of the campaign.

If you roll a 16 for your Strength instead of a 14. That gives you a PERMANENT +1 bonus to all strength-based attacks, damage rolls, and skill checks for your character's ENTIRE career due to nothing but a single, momentary turn of chance.

Likewise, roll a 12 instead of a 14 and you suffer a PERMANENT -1 penalty to all of these rolls for the ENTIRE life of your character.

This is nothing, I repeat NOTHING like making a single attack roll. To compare the two kinds of rolls is fallacious in the extreme. They are completely different, have completely different consequences in the game, and must, therefore, be treated very differently.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If you roll a 16 for your Strength instead of a 14. That gives you a PERMANENT +1 bonus to all strength-based attacks, damage rolls, and skill checks for your character's ENTIRE career due to nothing but a single, momentary turn of chance.

Likewise, roll a 12 instead of a 14 and you suffer a PERMANENT -1 penalty to all of these rolls for the ENTIRE life of your character.

This is nothing, I repeat NOTHING like making a single attack roll. To compare the two kinds of rolls is fallacious in the extreme. They are completely different, have completely different consequences in the game, and must, therefore, be treated very differently.

I totally see where you're coming from, and I agree.

Personally, however, I would just use that 12 attribute as a roleplaying hook, take every opportunity to raise that attribute when I level, and if it looks like the character isn't pulling his weight at higher levels, then go on a quest for some sort of item or magic tome or something that would raise the attribute to a level appropriate level.

Since the game is so fluid, and is only limited by the cooperative story decisions of the DM and the characters, I don't see any deficit as insurmountable in the game world.

I also see deficits as interesting roleplaying possibilities, as well as pains in the arse when it comes to mechanical things like combat. YMMV.

MrG

 

[Nifft]

Personally, however, I would just use that 12 attribute as a roleplaying hook, take every opportunity to raise that attribute when I level, and if it looks like the character isn't pulling his weight at higher levels, then go on a quest for some sort of item or magic tome or something that would raise the attribute to a level appropriate level.

The trouble is: no such tome exists, nor will it ever exist in a sane, balanced game world.

Why not? Because giving that tome to someone who actually allocated their stats "appropriately" would make them exactly that much better than you.

In 4e, once you're behind in a stat, you can never catch up -- the game assumes you focus on boosting your primary attack stat at every opportunity, and thus your foes (at every level) will be a challenge to hit for someone who chose "optimally", and thus more than a challenge for you.

4e is a tight game (unlike 3e). You won't ever see a 40 point difference in skill check bonuses between characters -- which was the default in 3e. You won't see the Barbarian able to Power Attack for 20 because he would normally hit on a negative 10, and not just because Power Attack got changed.

IMHO, 4e's mechanics can serve role playing well, unless your chosen role is "suck at combat". If it is, 4e isn't the game for you. In 3e, you could play a pure support character (and contribute well), but 4e wants you to be able to hit stuff.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cabral]

However, the book states that their ability modifiers should still be in the +4 to +8 range. What they end up with is closer to +11 to +12.
Now I have to convince them to lower some stats for balance or they will be WAY stronger than the other party members. No one should have two 18s, one of them has 3...

The convince part should be easy. The book says to reroll if the total modifiers is less than 4 or more than 8 before racial bonuses.

 

[MrGrenadine]

The trouble is: no such tome exists, nor will it ever exist in a sane, balanced game world.

Why not? Because giving that tome to someone who actually allocated their stats "appropriately" would make them exactly that much better than you.

I agree--if the DM made such things rain down from the sky every other day.

But its a perfectly appropriate once-in-the-life-of-a-character, build-a-quest-around concept.


MrG

 

[Nifft]

I agree--if the DM made such things rain down from the sky every other day.

But its a perfectly appropriate once-in-the-life-of-a-character, build-a-quest-around concept.

Here's a way you could work that, and which I'd allow as a DM:

1/ Point Buy your stats. These are your "legal rights". Plot things will happen to you, but you will tend to have these stats (on average).

2/ Roll for your starting stats. Good luck! Assign them however you want; plot will change them.

3/ Game on!

Cheers, -- N

PS: The problem with the book isn't that it's once-in-a-lifetime. The problem is that it must be once-in-a-lifetime for exactly one PC, and not for any others (who don't "need" it). Such special treatment may offend some people's sensibilities.

 

[Ahglock]

Does anyone know why this was included in this edition? Random stats seem more realistic (some people are better than others) but less balanced (some people are better than others). Isn't this the opposite of the new D&D philosophy (which favors balance over realism)?
.

I don't think rolling is that much more unbalanced than point buy. Neither is really balanced in the end result, they both have a balance of opportunity. Some people roll better, some people min/max better. Overall point buy is I guess a more balanced starting point, but I'm not convinced it is by that large of a margin. Standard away is even more balanced, but it bores the heck out of me.