Statistic Generation Methods

[Rand]

I generally use 4d6, drop the lowest, repeat six times, arrange to taste.

A few times in the past I've actually used 3d6 rolled straight, no options in arrangement if I felt like running a campaign with very 'normal' real world characters that werent especially heroic or above the norm.

 

[Stormborn]

For NPCs I tend to just say 16,15,14,13,12,10 and apply racial modifiers.
I usually let players roll 4d6 SEVEN times and drop the lowest roll OR roll the standard 6 times but let them do it twice, choosing between the best set, not the best 6.

 

[kenjib]

The problem with your "standard" array is that this character is really quite bad at most things. That kind of stat array I could see passing for maybe one of the classes where a high stat isn't quite as important, such as a fighter or rogue. Spellcasting classes, due to the hardwired demand on stats, won't work well with that. With a 15 in your spellcasting attribute, you can BARELY squeak by, and barely squeaking by is not something one should aspire to.

I don't understand what you mean. It's all relative to the challenges that the DM throws at the party, isn't it? Frankly, an equal level CR challenge is far too easy IMO and kind of boring because there is pretty much zero element of risk.

A 15 in a spellcasting attribute is fine. You just need to get it to 19 by the time you are 17th level. You will only be one point off, so you just need a +2 stat boosting item and you're fine. That should be no problem at 17th level.

If characters have a higher stat baseline, you throw higher CRs at them. If they have a lower stat baseline, you throw lower CRs at them. Whether or not they barely squeek by is a function of the DM, no?

 

[Desdichado]

What the heck are heroic stats? You don't think 30-point buy is heroic stats? I think that's a bit high for point buy. Here's my latest from a campaign that's pretty ad-hoc: we rolled 4d6 drop lowest and took the stats in order. However, we decided we could re-roll 1s. I used my magic d6s (some will remember them from a Chicago Gamesday a while back where I rolled an unbelievable character up right away.) I got really good scores this time around, 17, 13, 16, 15, 15, 11. In fact, I was better than anyone else, actually, so we allowed them to all make adjustments up to my range.

Now, we made these characters for what was intended to be an on-the-fly one-off, but we liked it so much we're going to keep at it. We're going to redo our characters with long-term gaming in mind, and because we've got high scores now, we're going to redo them as 35-point buy. That's the highest we've ever used.

Personally, my preferred method is to take BG@W's standard array and give each player 3 points to distribute as they like. For higher powered games, I let them take 5. Heroes are as defined by their weaknesses as they are by their strengths, even in over-the-top mythology.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

The players having a stronger tendency to split up and being interdependant has nothing to do with stat points, it has to do with the fact that they aren't quickly eaten in detail. If your other DM is not doing a great deal to strongly discourage this, it's no surprise that they do it.

Well, maybe. But also as you note later on, the players simply aren't as good at many things. It forces a degree of specialization.

The problem with your "standard" array is that this character is really quite bad at most things. That kind of stat array I could see passing for maybe one of the classes where a high stat isn't quite as important, such as a fighter or rogue. Spellcasting classes, due to the hardwired demand on stats, won't work well with that. With a 15 in your spellcasting attribute, you can BARELY squeak by, and barely squeaking by is not something one should aspire to.

It does, indeed, force a spellcaster to dump all his future points into his or her primary casting attribute. It really hurts the paladins and monks, which is fine with me as I personally want those classes to be rarer. I disagree that the character is bad at most things. The standard array (which the iconics were built on) ammounts to +2,+2,+1,+1,+0,-1. That's only one attribute that is truly bad and the other is mediocre. The half-orcs get boned, but what else is new?

I'm not going to defend this to the death, obviously it isn't for everyone. As I said, the standard array is something I encourage, not something I mandate. But I use it in my regular D&D game and I've used it in d20M and I have personally liked the results. My players did complain once at the outset, but they got used to it after one game and there's been no grumbling since then.

Just my two cents.

 

[Desdichado]

The problem with your "standard" array is that this character is really quite bad at most things. That kind of stat array I could see passing for maybe one of the classes where a high stat isn't quite as important, such as a fighter or rogue. Spellcasting classes, due to the hardwired demand on stats, won't work well with that. With a 15 in your spellcasting attribute, you can BARELY squeak by, and barely squeaking by is not something one should aspire to.

Give me a break. According to the rules, 10-11 is average. Therefore, all PCs with the standard array are better than average. Your assertion that they are "really quite bad at most things" is absurd.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

Personally, my preferred method is to take BG@W's standard array and give each player 3 points to distribute as they like.

Ohhhhh. I like that!

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, it works really well. You can get one stat all the way up to 18 (before racial mods) or you can get rid of your one negative modifier at the cost of being good but not excellent. It makes the players feel a little more in control of stat generation, but still forces tough decisions on how to handle it.

 

[Ferret]

There is one whare (CMIIR) You start with 6 +1d6, then those 1d6 switched round. Strange but it looks good.

 

[Wombat]

I've heard a rather interesting one lately: 18d6, one reroll of initial ones, arrange into stats, 6x3, however you wish. I'd think it'd produce some interesting results. I haven't done much analysis on it yet, but I think this will neatly correct messy character generation issues: You're pretty much assured to get a decent character out of it, without producing characters which are cardboard cutouts like pointbuy will do, or getting a character with above average stats, yet still has a complete lack of real aptitude for any class, and is therefore worse off than a character with average stats overall, but a single good stat to play to balanced by bad ones.

Interesting!

I think I will have to steal ... err ... borrow this idea for my next game