Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[TheYeti1775]

Mixed bag of tricks really.
I've found enjoyment from choosing, rolling, point buy and a combinations of all the above.

One of my favorite characters was a Deep Gnome Fighter.
15 Str
17 Dex
14 Con
11 Int
8 Wis
6 Cha

All rolled. I played him as a shorter than average Deep Gnome with a complex about his height and a drunkard. He was forever causing fights.

 

[Stoat]

Now, see, I feel the exact opposite about 3e (and PF). With 3e, compared to 1e/2e, you don't need to get very high stats to start getting bonuses. And there are ways to increase all stats via magic items and level-ups. 3e/PF is, IMO, one of the best games for rolling stats randomly.

I'm thinking about the Paladin with an Int of 6. In 2e, the penalty for a lower ability score is usually less severe than in 3.X. So playing a foolish rogue, or a clumsy wizard, or a sickly cleric carries less mechanical burden.

I'm also thinking about a Ranger I DM'd for that was converted from 2E to 3.0. IIRC, his lowest stat was a 12. In 2E, he didn't get a whole lot of benefit from his higher than average stats. In 3.X, he qualified for a number of feats, he got bonuses to important skills and he got bonuses to all his saves.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But forcing a player to accept a loss is never fun, and the point of any game is fun. You don't want your tanks sitting around with less health than the mage, and you don't want your mage to have more strength than the fighters.

Which is why I closely supervise rolling when I run a group that I allow rolling. 7 sets of 4d6, re-roll anything lower than an 8. Yes, i'm fairly generous to my players, and sometimes they can be a little OP, but 9/10 times, people are happier with stronger characters than weaker ones. And adding more enemies, making those enemies stronger, has never been a bother for me.

I would rather have to tune up a game to handle OP characters, than tune it down for weaker ones. IMO, players are quick to sense when they are very weak, and the challenge really shouldn't be a challenge.

If they do not want to roll on day one(I prefer having a "character making session" day before the game), then it's the point buy system. Sorry honor system, can't trust you.


Personally when making characters, I prefer a point-buy system. It avoids "honor system" and "good/bad rolls" drama, and it's easier to balance games around.

Personally, if I rolled stats and was gimped across the board(say, three 8's, one below, and nothing above a 12), I'd ask for a re-roll(unless everyone had similar stats), because lets face it, you're not going to do much of anything in any game with those kinds of numbers without the GM having to REALLY adjust things for you.

 

[Crothian]

I like random rolls, but then again I'm find with building a character based on stats. A lot of the time it depends on the DM as well. There are DMs that I would not want to randomly roll characters for knowing that they won't be able to handle the different power levels that creates.

I like the pick your own stats methods. It allows players to create the character they want and not have to mess with randomness or limited min maxing methods of point buy.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jeff, when you learn to determine what is of mathematical significance you can tell me I am wrong. I'll give you a clue, you don't start with the average.

Yeah, that's an illustration. I didn't think it would help, as I said.

Regardless, you're incorrect. Plus-or-minus 5 is hugely significant on a d20 roll, even given the high modifiers that eventually become the norm in a d20 game. I'm not sure what you're thinking when you say "mathematically significant," but by any commonly accepted meaning of that term, plus-or-minus 5 to a d20 roll is immense.

Plus-or-minus 1, in another attempt at an illustration, was significant enough that the 4E designers chose to issue important patches for that game.

And in one final attempt at illustration, plus-or-minus 5 is exactly the difference between DC thresholds in most skills in 3.5/Pathfinder. In other words, plus-or-minus 5 will always make a difference in what level of success someone has with a skill, if level of success matters.

 

[TerraDave]

Jeff, when you learn to determine what is of mathematical significance you can tell me I am wrong. I'll give you a clue, you don't start with the average.

Treebore, you want to share what "mathematical significance" is? I am assuming it is different then the much more widely used term "statistical significance"

Presumably, a difference of 1, or even a bias in a die that generated results that were greater then normal by a fraction of 1, would be "significant" in context. One could even break out the old chi square test to see if the bias was of statistical signifigance.

 

[Oryan77]

I prefer the randomness of the dice for stats. But I also want the PCs to be at least above average. So if the total of all 6 stats don't average at least 12, then I allow the player to reroll the entire set.

I have no problem with a low stat score. But I can understand the frustration if the PC just feels weak all across the board.

 

[Umbran]

My mistake was in setting my heart on a concept.

Well, if you weren't told it'd be random roll, then it isn't really a mistake on your part. The GM should have been clear about the generation method.

Strict random roll really is best when everyone's coming to the table clean-slate of concepts, and allow their concepts to be steered by the results. On occasion, I've used modified random roll, where I make sure nobody is under a certain point, or nobody is too far below the party average. Those are a little more forgiving of pre-chosen concepts.

 

[TerraDave]

Why not a compromise hybrid of both point buy and random?

I liked the recent version of Gamma World using the 4E D&D ruleset.

IIRC, it assigned 18 to a primary stat and 16 to a secondary stat, while the remaining stats were generated randomly (3d6 for each one, iirc).

I think this where the future should be.

We have had some threads on card based char gen, that allow for randomness, but in a more balanced way. E.g. you have six cards with a standard array of stats, draw in order. Highly random in one sense, but nobody gets bad stats. You could also allow swapping two for some customization.

Another alternative is to comp someone for having bad stats. That charecter could be older for example, and more experienced, with better skills. I think Twillight 2000 did something like this, and I have seen variations in CoC.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this where the future should be.

We have had some threads on card based char gen, that allow for randomness, but in a more balanced way. E.g. you have six cards with a standard array of stats, draw in order. Highly random in one sense, but nobody gets bad stats. You could also allow swapping two for some customization.

Another alternative is to comp someone for having bad stats. That charecter could be older for example, and more experienced, with better skills. I think Twillight 2000 did something like this, and I have seen variations in CoC.

My issue with this is that it makes things rather predicable. It points specific builds in specific directions. And if you start trying to open it up, it makes me wonder why you closed it in the first place.

Having 'stat arrays' that players can put whereever they want is fine and dandy, but when you start saying X+X will always equal Y, you start heading in the direction of the MMO universe where everyone plays X+Y race and class combo because it's statistically better than all the other options.