Unclear what this reply is about. I was just letting tetrasodium know that in the video he was talking about from Matt Colville, Matt used 4d6 drop lowest not the 3d6.Nice try, but math don’t cheat, if you don’t put a minimum you will eventually roll the two 15+ and a bunch of 3. It may not happen at your table but a world wide used method will get it.
Even if you roll 4d6 drop lowest you can still achieve a 3. Rarer but still possible.
I believe Colville had a minimum of 8. Not sure if you reroll lower then an 8 or made it an eight. For myself if someone rolled 2 or more 3's I'd have them start over.Even if you roll 4d6 drop lowest you can still achieve a 3. Rarer but still possible.
So unless you put an explicit rule for lowest score, you can still roll 15,15,3,3,3,3!
And should also buy a lottery ticket!
I think it comes down to table personalities. My group doesn't really care if they roll higher or lower than others at the table, so it's really not a concern of ours. However, I know a few players and I've seen many here who do view the kind of equity arrays give as very important.I mention this because I think that this is often given short shrift in discussions of ability score generation- not the effect on a singular PC, but on the effect on the table. If someone gets really really low scores, and someone gets really really high scores, what will happen? Is this going to be seen as good fun- an opportunity for memorable characters? Or is this going to be viewed by the players as unfun and unfair? The type of players and the reaction you get will most likely determine the best methods of character generation.
I would go so far as to say that this sense of fairness is what has likely driven the adoption of standardized ability scores over time (point buy, array). Even some randomized methods allow for this sense of fairness (such as allowing players to bid on scores at an auction, or to chose among a number of random scores).
Anyway, I wanted to put this out for general discussion- the social and table aspect of ability score generation. What do you think? Do you consider this, and if so (or if not), why?
He has them re-roll if lower than 8. I watched part of the first episode of his game and saw them make characters.I believe Colville had a minimum of 8. Not sure if you reroll lower then an 8 or made it an eight. For myself if someone rolled 2 or more 3's I'd have them start over.
I like how The Black Hack does it: you roll 1d20 and if the result is ABOVE your current stat, it goes up by 1 point. That way it gets harder the higher your stat already is.
Which means someone starting with a standard-ish run of stats - say, 15-14-13-12-10-8 - has a pretty good chance of seeing two of those go up at level 2 and (maybe not the same) two go up at level 3; after which the odds very much favour one stat going up each level for quite a while.You get ONE try for each stat at each levelup (which I personally find excessive) If it's your class' main stat, you can try twice.
Which means someone starting with a standard-ish run of stats - say, 15-14-13-12-10-8 - has a pretty good chance of seeing two of those go up at level 2 and (maybe not the same) two go up at level 3; after which the odds very much favour one stat going up each level for quite a while.
I agree, that's excessive - unless you're playing a level-capped variant similar to the E6 version of 3e, in which case I could live with it.
In "TBH" at character creation, you roll 3d6 in order. If you roll 14+ for one stat, the next stat will automatically be a 7. Once you have 6 stats, you can swap 2 stats to your liking.What do they begin at after character creation/before the first roll? Do they roll at level 1 or not till 2?
True.True, but if you could only choose one per level, you'd go with the fifteen. And then you'd have a 75% chance of nothing happening, meaning it could be multiple levels until you saw any growth. So, they have to have it be for every stat just on that, and if you assume an average game of ten levels, you probably need every level to get that fifteen to go up two or three times.
I suppose the bigger question* is, on average how many total stat points, if any, should a character expect to gain** over 5 levels, or 10, or 20? Then once that one's answered the next is should those gains be at predictable points (e.g. every x levels), or random, or a combination of both? After that we can ask should the gains be in stats of the player's choice, or forced by class (i.e. gains must be in your prime stat), or randomized, or some combination?
Personally, I'm not sold on the need for much stat gain at all in 5e, largely because as far as I can tell there's no means of permanently losing stat points in this edition thus any cancel-out-the-losses rationale evaporates. I could see over 20 levels a gain of maybe 2-5 points in your prime stat plus the same range again in total across randomized other stats, with the gains in all cases coming unpredictably. One way of doing this might be to take that roll-over-the-stat method propsed upthread and modify it such that if you miss at a level your roll at next level is at +5, cumulative each level until you hit; but once you hit you don't get to roll for that stat on the level following such that a stat cannot advance on two level-ups in a row. (so if the stat is 15 and you roll 13 (miss) then next level you roll 6 [+5] (miss) then next level you roll 12 [+10] (hit, stat advances) then next level there's no roll, after which you start the process again by rolling straight-up against 16)
* - and one can argue this question can be applied in some form to any edition, not just 5e; and the answer would probably be different for each.
** - via pure game mechanics, ignoring wish effects or other in-game means of permanently boosting a stat.