D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

[CTurbo]

I have always preferred roll 4d6 but it does have it's issues. I love randomness of rolls but I HATE having wildly unbalanced characters because some characters have god stat and some are below average. I know it's hard on a DM and it's not fun for the players either. In my one of my current campaigns, my character is wildly more powerful than the rest of the group. A Barbarian with a 20 in Str, 16 in Dex and Con from level 1. The biggest issue here is the overwhelming inbalance of hit points between my character and the rest of the team.

Anyway, I think moving forward, I'll try to roll for scores three times, keep the highest, but make everybody use it to keep some balance.

Here are three example rolls just for fun-

17, 16, 13, 13, 12, 12
15, 15, 14, 13, 11, 5
18, 15, 14, 11, 8, 7

I did it a few more times and got a couple of REALLY terrible rolls.

 

[pukunui]

The main reason I dislike rolling for stats is the lack of parity that often results. Sometimes you get a group where most of the PCs are equal, but one is considerably better or worse off than the others. Sometimes you get a group of PCs with stats all over the place.

I've been sticking with the default array or default point buy in my 5e games so far and it's worked out just fine.

 

[LordEntrails]

What's a "gish class"?

 

[Olive]

What's a "gish class"?

I just looked it up too - basically a fighter than can cast spells. Paladin etc.

Anyway - we've always rolled because we always play in the same small group and we can just rule on outside cases (particularly low stats). In 5e I don't think lower stats are nearly as much of a problem (no bonus sells etc) and rolling randomness is part of the essential D&D experience for us.

 

[Zardnaar]

What's a "gish class"?

A fighter/wizard type. These days a warrior/spellcaster that casts arcane spells, maybe a Paladin or Cleric. In the PHB, valor bard, eldritch knight, blade pact warlock are some examples.

To be a good one you usually play a Paladin, Cleric or multiclass as the official ones kinda suck with the default array.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So you're preferring 4d6 because you're ignoring the lower rolls and only taking the higher ones over an array?

No. He mentioned that low rolls turn into Moon Druids.

Other good things to do with low rolls include single-classed wizards, melee fighters, pure rogues, and of course clerics. But clerics are the worst and need to die, so pretend I didn't say that last one.

BTW, are you also aware that the standard array is lowballed? It comes in around the 40th percentile of rolled stats. The median rolled array will have at least one 16+, statistically speaking; the standard array is somewhat worse than that.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. He mentioned that low rolls turn into Moon Druids.

Other good things to do with low rolls include single-classed wizards, melee fighters, pure rogues, and of course clerics. But clerics are the worst and need to die, so pretend I didn't say that last one.

BTW, are you also aware that the standard array is lowballed? It comes in around the 40th percentile of rolled stats. The median rolled array will have at least one 16+, statistically speaking; the standard array is somewhat worse than that.

We also had a thief with 3 13's as their best stats and a Barbarian with 6 intelligence.

In AD&D we had a fighter with 3 intelligence named "The" It was the only word he knew.

If somone plays a really bad PC and sticks with it I often compensate with better magic items. Gauntlets of Ogre power, a +2 or 3 weapon etc.

 

[ccs]

The game also falls apart as the average Con score of the party rises. Since Con increases your maximum HP and the rate at which you recover HP through rest and Hit Dice, a party with good Con across the board is going to have so many HP as to be virtually un-threatened by any ordinary challenges. You're supposed to need to sacrifice something important, if you want to focus on Con. Any class which only relies on one stats for everything it needs to do, and can then invest in Con at no trade-off, is fundamentally flawed by being SAD.

Really? I've seen games fall apart for all manner of reasons over the decades, but the next one done in by numerous high Con scores will be the 1st.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope some of the other PCs rolled lower, I just did not mentiuon them and they chose the more basic classes like fighter (16 strength), one cleric got a natural 18 with the other stats being in the middle roughly.

That's another aspect that doesn't sit will with me. The implication that if you didn't roll greater than normal stats, you better play only a limited amount of class types. Bollocks. Play whatever class you want, regardless of the stats you have. Anyone who tried to suggest or push another player into a class based the stat rolls would have a conversation with me about if they are a good fit for my table.

No. He mentioned that low rolls turn into Moon Druids.
.

I know. I mentioned that in the part you deleted from my quote.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Ha. I like the 4d6 method as I like random low stats. I've found that what a character is bad at can help define them better for roleplaying purposes. I remember with fondness the Dwarven Fighter named Creasote who had 6 dex.

In one game he became trapped by zombies, so held his knife in his teeth and started to climb the wall behind him. Halfway up he slipped, and with a low dex he pretty had no chance of saving himself. He fell, crushed 3 of the zombies and made his smile a lot wider due to the knife he had been holding in his mouth. Ah, good times.