Ways to generate ability points.

[Buttercup]

Me? I like randomness. 3d6+1 for each score and arrange IN ORDER of Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, and Cha, bay-bee.

I wouldn't want to play a character generated that way. Obviously everyone seems to feel strongly about whichever method they prefer.

 

[Crothian]

Obviously everyone seems to feel strongly about whichever method they prefer.

I sure as heck don't. I have what I perfer and what I do a sa DM but it is not like I'd refusea gmae because they used an alternative method. Having fun in the game is so much more to me then the numbers on a character sheet.

 

[orsal]

I like randomness, because I like to look at the abilities and decide what I want to do with that character. I'd rather pick the class and character concept to match the abilities than the other way round -- partly because it makes for a greater variety (how often would you choose to create a fighter with dexterity as the dump stat, for example?) and partly because I find more inspiration when I'm given something to start with. So my preference is for a purely random stat selection (typically 4d6, which I've decided is a reasonable power level, although back in the day I was quite the 3d6 purist). That means no rearrangement -- I want my dice to tell me which will be my good and bad abilities.

One interesting observation: the player (like me) who prefers more randomness than the campaign rules provide for has that choice, while the player who prefers point-buy when the DM's rules call for dice hasn't got the option. In fact, if I'm playing in a point-buy campaign, I'll generally roll ability scores, adjust them up or down 1 point to get the specified total, and if my rolled numbers are too far from the specified total I'll throw them out and roll again. For example, if I roll a 28-point character in a 30-point game, I'll change an 11 to a 12 and a 13 to a 14, but if I roll a 43-point character I'll start from scratch.

On the other hand, if I were DMing (hypothetical: I haven't DMed since 1/e), I'd set the standard rule according to my preference, but I'd be willing to accommodate players who come in with a more specific character idea than I generally start out with, so long as they weren't powergaming with it. For example, if a player really had some idea for a character he wanted to play, I might let him do what he wanted with a 28 point-buy, 28 chosen because it's just below the 4d6 average. Or if a player wanted a particular stat to be very high, but didn't care about the rest, I might let her designate an 18 in exchange for using only 3d6 for the rest of them. I don't think my players should have to conform to my own preferred character creation style if it doesn't suit them.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

For hp's, I've been having the players roll twice and taking the highest. It's fast and simple and if you roll bad both times, you can't say you didn't have a chance to improve it. Again, the players seem to like which is the most important.

Hmm. I normally use average-per-level HP, but I like this idea somewhat. Since I run a Gestalt game, though, I would modify it that the character rolls the HD for both of their classes and takes the higher result-- that way, HD overlap is actually a bit of a bonus.

If I ever return to randomized HP, I think I'll do it this way.

 

[MonsterMash]

Please don't interpret this question as confrontational, because I don't mean it that way. For those of you who insist upon a random method of ability generation for your players, why? What is so wrong with allowing players to distribute stats as they please? Do you feel like this would ruin your enjoyment (as DM) of the game?

No it doesn't sound confrontational to me. I prefer die rolling as a Player and as a DM, but maybe thats just me being strange. I (when I have time) also generate some significant NPCs by die rolling, rather than using standard arrays or PB>

My objection to PB systems is the tendency for similar character ability spreads for a class/race, lack of the element of chance (for good or ill). I can understand using modified die rolling systems than 4d6DL, e.g. 2d6+6 (range 8-18, avg 13) or 2d6+1d4+2 (range 5-18, avg 11.5), which drastically reduce the odds of a character having useless abilities, especially on say 2d6+6 or 3d4+6.

Money - always random, though I am starting to toy with the idea of using starting kits, but its trickiest with fighters and paladins whose weapons and armour are most important.

 

[ThirdWizard]

1) 14 is just 1 point away. 1 point = +1 to the modifier. That's the best deal you can get.

2) I've thought about that, but my rationale always ends up like this: I start out with an 18. Then I say, ok, my other stats will be a lot better if I downgrade that to a 17 - I get 3 points back. But then I say - whoa! If I downgrade it again to a 16, I get another 3 points!! And this time those 3 points are "free". You should only get 2 points for the second downgrade - that would make a lot more sense.

I never said they were good reasons. The second one is useful only in certain cases. A wizard might really want a 18 Int for DCs and bonus spells, but make it a 17 and save 3 to put into Con to help survivability to level 4 when the 17 will become an 18. This is such a corner case, though, that it isn't all that useful. The only reason I can think to do this is for those characters who really want high DCs but don't want to spend too many points, so only casters. And then only some of the time, because many will want to stop at 16, and others will take the 18 so they can get a 20 stat at level 8.

This has gotten me thinking, though. One of the main complaints with point buy is cookie cutter characters. What if the costs were variable...

8-13: one for one
14-15: two for one
16-17: three for one
the second/fourth/etc time you got a stat it would be different
2nd 14: one point
2nd 16: two points
2nd 18: three points

This would encourage odd scores. In order to get the same power characters with this method would require higher point buys. I'm not sure how well it would work, but it might be interesting.

 

[Thanee]

You could probably make that simpler by having every even stat (12+) cost one point more total and give a flat +3 points to compensate or something like that.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ender_wiggin]

I've thought about modifying the system, but it's like trying to convert the United States from conventional to metric. In theory, the benefits would outweigh the costs, but it doesn't work out.

When I modify to something more sensible, all the power levels go to sh*t. 32 point buy isn't 32 point buy anymore, and no one knows what's going on. It's too complicated, and my current system works fine.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You could probably make that simpler by having every even stat (12+) cost one point more total and give a flat +3 points to compensate or something like that.

The problem I ran into thinking about this is the more points the higher scores cost, the easier it becomes to get the lower scores because you have to add more points available to try and even it out. You run the risk of everyone stopping at, say, 14 on all the stats because it just becomes not worth it to raise anything higher.

I've thought about modifying the system, but it's like trying to convert the United States from conventional to metric. In theory, the benefits would outweigh the costs, but it doesn't work out.

When I modify to something more sensible, all the power levels go to sh*t. 32 point buy isn't 32 point buy anymore, and no one knows what's going on. It's too complicated, and my current system works fine.

Yeah, I ran a few numbers, and if you change it what works for a 25 point buy doesn't work for a 32 point buy. The system I described with 27 points might theoretically be roughly equivalent to a 25 point buy, but you can't just make a 32 buy into a 34 buy.

Point buy works very well for making balanced characters. Maybe not overly interesting characters' stats, but I can live with that. It would take far more thought and calculator work than I'm willing to put in to find a point buy alternative. I'll just stick to my ol' 28 point buy like I've been doing since 3E came out, I guess.

I read all these interesting stat generation methods, and still keep to the point buy. Like the commercial says, I fear change.

 

[Wombat]

One of the approved methods I'm using for the new game I'm starting to put together will be:

1. Roll 21d6
2. Build 6 sets of 3
3. Assign at will

It's mostly identical statistically to the 4d6 drop lowest method in the mean score, but gives more variance. It's slightly more likely to produce high and low outlier values. Plus it's fun to roll 21d6.

This is the system I introduced to my players a year or so ago, with the following provisos

1. as mentioned by many people, drop the three lowest rolls
2. You have only have one stat of 18 (before racial modifications), unless it is impossible to do otherwise
3. If, after taking out the three lowest dice, your total is below 72, reroll the three discarded lows and one of the "keepers" and add it back into the mix. Remove the three lows again. If the total is still below 72, repeat as necessary.

My players like this as it has both random and choice elements blended together.