D&D 4E Should Ability Scores in 4E Be Randomly Determined?

[Aus_Snow]

i must say if it is done this way without the dice variant in the PHB then i would never use this book ever .

Oh well.

But. . . seriously. . . you could of course use [probably around] 99.99% of the book absolutely as is, with no thought, let alone modification, required. If it has point buy as default, and you happen to prefer rolling for stats, I mean. So. . . why on Earth wouldn't you?

 

[Jhaelen]

I think ability scores ought to be determined randomly, as I like a bit of randomness in both PC and NPC generation. My players prefer rolling to point buy too, so I hope it stays in the 4th edition.

To this, I can only say this:
In my last campaign there was exactly one player who wanted to roll for ability scores excatly once: He happened to roll pretty bad and happily accepted my offer to forget it ever happened and simply used point-buy like everyone else.

Besides being the fairest method to create a character, using point-buy also makes it possible to create characters without anyone else being present to prevent the inevitable cheating...

 

[Baby Samurai]

Besides being the fairest method to create a character, using point-buy also makes it possible to create characters without anyone else being present to prevent the inevitable cheating...

Yep, sorry, I know this might offend some people, but in my 20 years of playing this game, it always seems like whenever people "roll" for their ability scores they conveniently seem to have nothing under a 14.

"Hey, check it out, I rolled these!"


…Yeah, sure ya did…

 

[Dinkeldog]

My favorite system was the one Wulf put together where we collectively took different aspects of play like abilities and family heirlooms, then worked things among ourselves so that everyone had strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yep, sorry, I know this might offend some people, but in my 20 years of playing this game, it always seems like whenever people "roll" for their ability scores they conveniently seem to have nothing under a 14.

Worse still, in some ways, are the exceptions to whatever system of random determination it is, that seem to mysteriously occur here and there, should some PC be really, really shafted. Or some PC be really, really b0rken. Or one or more of each. Suddenly "random" becomes less and less so, accordingly.

"Oh, roll them again." [there goes the system]

"Wow. Uh, roll them again." [hey, I'm the DM, so I can change the system at will!]

"Ah **** it, you've rolled enough times. Just replace that one with a (13/14/15/whatever)" [system? what system?]


Gotta love that "trying to have it both ways" approach.




I'd be fine if the DMs who are likely to do that kind of thing, simply state it all up front. Written, even better.

I haven't encountered that system/non-system generation method in a long while, but I remember it well. Eh, good riddance.

 

[Flynn]

As fun as die-rolling can be, it's too variable. I've had a great disparity in stat levels between PCs and have had players complain about it constantly for weeks and months before finally leaving the game. Point Buy creates the greater illusion of balanced characters, so I'm all for it. If one feels that Point Buy creates characters that are not powerful enough, it's not hard to simply raise the number of points available for character creation. (I myself prefer a 32 Point Buy, as the players feel powerful without the stats truely getting out of hand.)

I hope that WOTC follows the suggestion above of "Point Buy in the PHB, and Die-Rolling variants in the DMG."

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[delericho]

Yep, sorry, I know this might offend some people, but in my 20 years of playing this game, it always seems like whenever people "roll" for their ability scores they conveniently seem to have nothing under a 14.

Indeed. Sometimes, the cheating is very subtle, and sometimes it might not even be conscious.

One time, I watched a player (in someone else's campaign) 'roll' 12-17-18-18-14-10. The 17-18-18-14 sequence came about when the player lifted up the dice from the previous roll and basically dropped them for the next roll. With minimal bounce in the cubes, the results were very similar each time. I've always wanted to know if he realised just what he was doing.

However, as I said up-thread, I'm not sure "some players cheat" is a particularly good reason for changing the rules. Used responsibly, random rolls for ability scores can give really good results.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Used responsibly, random rolls for ability scores can give really good results.

But even under strict supervision where you know there is no cheating you can have one guy who wants to play a monk roll 15, 13, 12, 10, 10, 9, and the dude who wants to play a fighter rolls 18, 16, 16, 15, 13, 10…not cool.

 

[delericho]

But even under strict supervision where you know there is no cheating you can have one guy who wants to play a monk roll 15, 13, 12, 10, 10, 9, and the dude who wants to play a fighter rolls 18, 16, 16, 15, 13, 10…not cool.

Aye, 'tis true. (But, see my note about about Monks under point buy - basically, that MAD is a killer.)

I think, if you're going with random rolls, it's a very good idea for the players to not decide, "I want to play a Monk", "I want to play a Fighter", or whatever, until after they've rolled the dice. And, of course, I realise that that isn't for everyone.

 

[Pygon]

As I think about it, scores should be allowed some variance, but that can get baked into a point buy system anyway as one score is lowered to raise another. If I tell players they can roll scores but I won't tolerate a character worth more than 45 points, then they will just say, ok, we'll make 45 point buy characters. It's too boring DMing super characters.

Perfectly viable characters can be made with 28 point buy. Use your brain, pick your race and class, work with what you have. Don't run a super character just because you're afraid of dying. Make a more ordinary one a hero through action, decision, and strategy.