Stat Generation through Editions

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Character generation fascinates me, so I took some time last night and examined the methods for generating stats through the various editions as presented in the PHB of the given edition.

1st Edition
No method provided for generating characters and the PHB states the DMG provides methods for generating them (thanks Gary ). The section on stat generation does indicate that the PC is above average and it is essential for character survival to be exceptional in no fewer then 2 abilities (exceptional being 15 or above).

2nd Edition
6 methods are provided in the PHB. Methods 2-6 are described as "Alternative" methods. The section says that a character with an exceptional stat is rare and should be cherished.

• Method I: 3d6 in order (Str Dex Con Int Wis Chr)
• Method II: 3d6 twice, pick one and apply to your first stat. Repeat this for the other 5 stats
• Method III: 3d6 six times, assign them as you please
• Method IV: 3d6 twelve times, assign 6 of these numbers as you please
• Method V: 4d6 drop the lowest, assign as you please
• Method VI: Each stat starts at 8, roll 7d6 and note each result. Apply each roll to the stat of your choice

v3.5
Sorry, my copy of 3.0 is missing . It is interesting that only one method is provided in the PHB (the DMG, I believe, has a point buy system). Also of note is that v3.5 is on the cover of the PHB, for some reason I thought this was simply called the revised PHB.

• The Method: 4d6 drop the lowest, assign as you please
• Reroll: If the sum of your bonuses is 0 or your highest stat is less then 13, you can throw out the generated stats and reroll.

Pathfinder
5 very different methods for stat generation here

• Standard: 4d6 drop the lowest, assign as you please
• Classic: 3d6 assign as you please. Optionally, 3d6 in order
• Heroic: 2d6+6 assign as you please
• Dice Pool: Assign 24d6 among the 6 stats, with each stat getting at least 3d6. Roll the number of dice assigned for each stat. For a heroic game, use 28d6
• Purchase: Stats all start at 10, then based on the power of the game (read points the DM provides), point buy each stat.

4th Edition
Three methods listed here, each one very different. This is the first time that a pregenerated stat array has been listed (and it's the first method that the PHB suggests). Also of note is the third method because of the author caveats about using it.

• Method I: Standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) to be assigned as you please
• Method II: 22 point buy starting with base stats of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8
• Method III: 4d6 drop the lowest assign as you please. This method advises that the total stat bonuses should be between +4 and +8. Anything outside that range and the DM may throw out the rolls. Additionally, a warning is issued that the stats generated my make an unplayable character and that this method of stat generation is banned in RPGA play.

My thoughts on this

1. The stat unification that happened in 3.0 is very interesting as it drastically effects what an average stat means. A 10 in 2nd is radically different from a 10 in 3rd, especially as it concerns melee combat.
2. Stat generation has been moving away from random (save for PF where 4/5 of the methods offered are randomly generated).
3. The idea of rolling stats in order is dead after 2nd edition (save for a small mention in PF). The system allows the player to craft the character based off of party need and personal preference. This probably leads to less rolling of new characters upon death as the player is most likely playing something he or she wanted to play.
4. The idea of a character being unplayable is interesting. Both 3.5 and 4th mention this and imo, is a by-product of the unified stat system.
5. 3.5 providing only one method seems odd, especially coming from the 6 provided in 2nd. This seems to be a by-product of both the popularity of 4d6 in 2nd and the unified stat system.
6. Why would EGG not have a stat generation method provided in 1st Edition, that's amazing.
7. The PF dice pool system is probably the most unique method provided. The player essentially describes in dice what he'd like to play, then rolls to see if he can play it. Wacky stuff.
8. 4th cares about balance, a lot. The standard array is the first method presented, followed by point buy. The random stat generation warns about unplayable characters (due to the math in the system), RPGA not allowing it, and your DM throwing out your generated stats. The authors are really poisoning the well with all the caveats for the third method and it's probably only included as a nod to the classic "rolling up a character" from early editions.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

The D&D Rules Cyclopedia mentions only one method:

Roll 3d6 and place in order - Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha. You can then adjust them by raising one score (your Prime Requisite) by one for every two points by which you lower another.

 

[Dykstrav]

I, for one, am glad that random rolling isn't the standard any more. Not because I inherently dislike it or anything... I prefer for characters to be designed rather than left to chance. One player might get their highest score around 13 and another could have their lowest score be a 15, and that is sort of frustrating.

I think the reason 4d6 became the standard in 3E is because of ability score requirements in 2E. During the 2E days, many classes required ability score minimums that made it tricky to get a favored class. For example, to play a ranger, you needed two scores at a minimum of 14 and two at a minimum of 13. Many DMs used the 4d6 method because they wanted to make it easier for players to get to play the "cool" characters. I think it's still debatable about whether or not those groups actually wanted their characters to be super-heroic, I think that the ability score requirements skewed this perception a bit.

All that being said, I do miss random generation from time to time. It was another level of challenge that could be added to the game. For instance, I played a rogue in early 3E with a 7 in both Strength and Constitution. The DM gave me the option to reroll, but I didn't... It was fun trying to convince the other party members to carry all the loot while I pocketed the gems. ("Really guys, they're the only things light enough for me to carry!") I played him a bit like Kyle's cousin Kyle from South Park, where he was raised by a neurotic, overprotective mother and worried constantly that he might catch a disease from touching a doorknob and the like. That was far more entertaining to me than some of the characters I played with much higher stats.

 

[delericho]

For the benefit of new players, my preference would be "4d6 drop lowest in order". However, that method simply won't work with 3e or 4e. Stats are simply too important now to leave to random chance like that.

(In either edition, you must have fairly good stats for your character to be considered 'viable', and you must have two or three particular stats high to be effective in your class of choice.)

Incidentally, the 3.0e PHB is the same as the 3.5e one - "4d6 drop lowest, arrange to suit" is the only generation method given. The 1st Edition DMG gives five methods for generating ability scores, all of which use dice in some form. Method 1 is the standard "4d6 drop lowest, arrange to suit" method.

 

[Obryn]

Why would EGG not have a stat generation method provided in 1st Edition, that's amazing.

Look closer - there's no attack or saving throw tables, either!

1e assumed that all the rules were more or less handled by the DM, including such things as whether or not a PC hit a monster. (The player still rolls, mind you - but the table was kept to the DM.) In this case, I don't doubt that Gary wanted the DM to have the final say on how stats were rolled up; keeping all the methods semi-private was a good way to control it.

As for stat generation... I started using point buy in 3.5, and from what I read, this was very common. Heck; I thought it was the standard. I'd been burned by one too many overpowered characters who threw all encounter balance calculations out of whack.

Whether or not I like random rolls is dependent on what I'm playing. I like point buy for 3.5 and 4e. I like random rolls for 1e and RC. Specifically, for 1e, I love Len Lakofka's die rolling method - 4d6 7 times in order; drop one, swap two.

-O

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Look closer - there's no attack or saving throw tables, either!

1e assumed that all the rules were more or less handled by the DM, including such things as whether or not a PC hit a monster. (The player still rolls, mind you - but the table was kept to the DM.) In this case, I don't doubt that Gary wanted the DM to have the final say on how stats were rolled up; keeping all the methods semi-private was a good way to control it.

As for stat generation... I started using point buy in 3.5, and from what I read, this was very common. Heck; I thought it was the standard. I'd been burned by one too many overpowered characters who threw all encounter balance calculations out of whack.

Whether or not I like random rolls is dependent on what I'm playing. I like point buy for 3.5 and 4e. I like random rolls for 1e and RC. Specifically, for 1e, I love Len Lakofka's die rolling method - 4d6 7 times in order; drop one, swap two.

-O

Yeah, I've not scoured the 1st Edition books as I didn't start playing until `97. I do have a copy of 1st Edition, but it's more for historical value. Guess I'm going to buy a 1st Edition DMG at some point (in case I ever need to run it).

We started doing point buy in 3.5 as well. I believe the DMG has all the rules for that method. During 2nd edition, I can't ever recall doing 3d6 in order. The longest running 2E game I played in used 5d6 drop the lowest 2 arrange as you please. You got to roll up to three different arrays, but you could never go back if the next roll wasn't as good as the previous (wacky stuff).

Now, do I like Point Buy? I'm not sure. As a DM, I like it. As a player, I kind of like letting the dice decide for me. I'm interested in trying out PF Dice Pool method at some point. It's just so out there compared with the rest of the methods (only 2E method IV is anywhere near it). It's essentially point buy with dice.

 

[renau1g]

In my home games I've always used random rolling, but if anyone gets over +8 they must re-roll the set. If anyone's total modifiers are 4 or more less than the highest PC they can re-roll the set. This keeps the PC's from being too super powered and also keeps them fairly close to each other in power level.

Had to institute it when one PC rolled two 18's and a 17 for his stats. I know the dice weren't weighted as they were mine.

 

[ggroy]

Back in the day, I once DM'd a 1E AD&D game where all the players wanted 18 in all their character stats. I decided to try it out and granted their wish, just to see how much different the game would be from randomly generated character stats. (For this particular game, I also removed the class/race restrictions).

We played this game for about a year, every week. In the end, it turned out the game didn't play much differently than any other 1E AD&D game I played/DM'd in previously and subsequently.

 

[delericho]

In my home games I've always used random rolling, but if anyone gets over +8 they must re-roll the set.

Ick. I would hate to roll up a "once in a lifetime" character, only to be told by the DM that I had to reroll it.

Had to institute it when one PC rolled two 18's and a 17 for his stats. I know the dice weren't weighted as they were mine.

I had a similar situation crop up in a game I played in. One player (actually the DM's brother, but that's incidental), rolled a character with 10, 14, 17, 18, 17, 16. He used the same dice as everyone else - they weren't weighted.

What happened was that the player would pick up the dice and immediately just throw them down. Because there wasn't much by way of a bounce, they were predisposed to come down close to what they had had previously - hence the sequence 17, 18, 17, 16 (IIRC).

I don't think there was any deliberate cheating going on. In fact, I don't think the player was even conscious of this quirk of the roll - he just thought it was a stroke of outrageous luck. Still, it was enough to remind me that even 'true' dice are no guarantee of a fair roll.

 

[ggroy]

I don't think there was any deliberate cheating going on. In fact, I don't think the player was even conscious of this quirk of the roll - he just thought it was a stroke of outrageous luck. Still, it was enough to remind me that even 'true' dice are no guarantee of a fair roll.

A lot of gamers fall for the "gambler's fallacy" and its inverse.

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inverse gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia