Rolling for Ability Scores or Point Buy

[Ahnehnois]

Down for both. I tend to use point buy more often for my games, but I'll roll if the style of game calls for it.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling for the win, because that's how our fore-bearers did it. And it was wise and we saw the truth in how they did it.

We usually roll 7 times 4D6, ditch the lowest score and ignore a 3 or 4.

At this point, why not just go with about a 34 point buy. Because, dollars to donuts, that's what you're going to get.

 

[Blackwarder]

I never liked point but, rolling for me.

Warder

 

[Jupp]

I'm in the minority that would rather have rolling, if possible.

My players would all rather have point buy.

Strange enough when we rolled PCs for our last campaign I offered point buy as an option but they just stared at me like I'd lost my senses. For them rolling up characters is a ritual that they never would give up because it's awesome fun to sit together at the table and roll up new characters for a new campaign. And we do have some PC's with sub-optimal stats but nobody cares, it's part of the roleplaying. I found that kinda cool.

 

[Jupp]

At this point, why not just go with about a 34 point buy. Because, dollars to donuts, that's what you're going to get.

Because our group never would give up rolling dice to create a character (see my post above). And trust me, we have enough sub 7 stats on our group's char sheets.

 

[Gorgoroth]

rolling

for me reminds me of classic D&D. D&D to me, is supposed to be high-lethality. You are not supposed to be guaranteed to win, or survive, or any of that nonsense (IMO)

I did not write IMHO because the populace who quit the last iteration where rolling is not possible because it's not "balanced", do not "get it". Life is not fair. Some people are born both dumb and weak. If you roll too poorly, your DM should just let you re-roll.

Some of the best characters I've ever had had several flaws. You do not get to chose the stats you get in real life, you can only chose what you wish to work on, and play the hand you're dealt. If your character sucks you can always commit suicide. A savvy DM would know this, and not allow completely unviable characters in their game.

Rolling IS D&D. D&D is not about making a perfect toon that lasts forever in a character selection screen and respawns with all his loot in tact and no death penalty. If you roll well, your death penalty IS your karma : you are less likely to have as good stats, statistically, next time.

Too bad.

But the playtest rules already supports both, so this entire thread is rather pointless. Some people will detest my opinion on this, but that's okay with me. I played 4e with point buy and in the very end, rolling, and rolling broke the game, because "waaaah", my character can't hit anything or can't take this or that feat, or multiclass this way or that.

Just deal with it. Play the game, die, then play a new char. It's the way D&D is supposed to work!!!

The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose. -- Match Point (Woody Allen, 2005)

Without dice, it isn't randomized storytelling, but just storytelling. With point buy, from the very outset you are already placing narrative expectations on the game that assumes you will be born this way or that, and you can achieve this or that mathematically if you attack this many orcs you will survive X rounds, given these stats. Let the dice decide. They are the true gods of D&D.

Give them their power back. Let them decide.

 

[delericho]

Point buy

But theres no reason not to include both in the book.

Also would like to see some common arrays already made, like 4e had.

Actually, although I've advocated a standard array as an option, the array I've suggested actually isn't just a pre-made array. If you work through all the costs, you'll note that my preferred point buy gives 28 points, while the array I suggested gives 29. (And, as others have painstakingly worked out, the 4d6-drop-lowest method is roughly equivalent, on average, to about 30.5 points.)

The reason I've advocating building in that sort of a disparity is that there's then a trade-off - if you go with point buy you have less raw power, but you get the opportunity to optimise it more fully than a standard array allows. And random rolls give even less ability to optimise, so again they get a (small) power break.

For that reason, I wouldn't advocate having many pre-made arrays, because if you provide more than a couple the chances of getting "the array I would have built anyway". Still, I could certainly see a case for building two or three arrays in this manner, and especially if the designers make sure to make them slightly sub-optimal (by including a couple of odd-numbered stats).

(Oh, one other thing - if including both random rolls and point buy in the system, it's important that both are at least viable options. 4e failed in this regard - the point buy system was quite clearly superior to rolling, both in terms of optimisation and raw power, and in a system where stats were already too important to leave to chance! 3e does quite well with the trade-off between 4d6dl versus 25/28-point buy - that's obviously not the only possible arrangement, but it is a decent one. The key thing, though, is that if you include both, they should give comparable results!)

 

[delericho]

I did not write IMHO because the populace who quit the last iteration where rolling is not possible because it's not "balanced", do not "get it". Life is not fair. Some people are born both dumb and weak.

D&D is not real life. It's better.

Without dice, it isn't randomized storytelling, but just storytelling. With point buy, from the very outset you are already placing narrative expectations on the game that assumes you will be born this way or that, and you can achieve this or that mathematically if you attack this many orcs you will survive X rounds, given these stats. Let the dice decide. They are the true gods of D&D.

Give them their power back. Let them decide.

The thing is that the dice already have that power. I make dozens of rolls every session, and each of those rolls can go one way or another. Indeed, as my 3.5e campaign goes forward and save-or-die becomes increasingly prevalent, those dice rolls are starting to become ever more lethal.

So the dice have that power already, and I'm not for taking that from them.

But if my DM mandates random rolls for character creation, and I roll poorly while the rest of the group rolls well (or even if I just roll a little worse for my Fighter in every stat than the other Fighter in the group), then I'm not going to enjoy the experience. And if it's the start of a campaign, I'm signing up to play that character long-term, potentially for months or even years.

For a one-shot, it doesn't matter. If we're assuming that characters are going to die easily and frequently, it doesn't really matter. But for the standard campaign play, where I'm signing up to play the character long term, a bad set of rolls can affect the player's enjoyment of the campaign permanently - it matters in a way that no other roll (other than hit points per level) matters.

So I have no problem with people preferring random rolls. And I'll argue that the game absolutely should support both, and that both should give comparably good results. But I reject absolutely the notion that random rolls are the way that it must be.

 

[billd91]

At this point, why not just go with about a 34 point buy. Because, dollars to donuts, that's what you're going to get.

I think there are still good reasons to roll even if there are various failsafes put into the method. I think the distribution of scores still works better with parties mixing classes that are Multiple Attribute Dependent vs Single Attribute Dependent as well as mixing experienced players with newbies. I also prefer bad stat rolls that are kept to be uncompensated with a direct investment into a higher score. You can say I'm not a fan of dump statting.

 

[CM]

I tried a hybrid once that worked OK:

Roll the first four stats with 4d6 drop lowest, rounding 3-7 up to 8 (if you want), then see how many points those scores would cost to buy.

If it's over 24 (or sub a number of your choice here), the last two stats are 10s. If it's under 24, then spend enough points to buy the last two stats up to a 28 point character total.

It gives you a little randomness but cuts off the highest and lowest ends of the power curve.

Part of the problem with ability scores is that 3e and 4e tend to set very high ability score prerequisites (15, 17, or in some cases even higher in 3e) on some key feats. If 5e avoids this (all signs point to it being the case so far), I think players might be more open to drifting away from min-maxing.