Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[Nifft]

IS +1 significant? No, not really. Is that +1, applied to your sample of random d20 rolls, enough to accept that the PC with the +1 really is doing better than one that doesn't have it?

If I am 5% better than you, then I am better than you.

You don't have to see the effect for it to be real. You can pretend that we're earning the same salary (even if mine is 5% higher than yours), but there's a numerical reality, and the difference isn't some subtle thing hidden in a pile of statistics. 5% better is better, to a degree that is quantifiable (specifically, it is better by 5%).

Given the relatively few rolls a PC makes in the course of a session or an adventure, probably not.

We really aren't playing the same game, are we.

In my experience, a player will roll at least 20 times in any given combat -- that goes for 3.x and 4e, for spellcasters and muggles alike.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

If I am 5% better than you, then I am better than you.

You don't have to see the effect for it to be real. You can pretend that we're earning the same salary (even if mine is 5% higher than yours), but there's a numerical reality, and the difference isn't some subtle thing hidden in a pile of statistics. 5% better is better, to a degree that is quantifiable (specifically, it is better by 5%).

But comparing it to a salary makes no sense at all. There's no random element to the payment we'd get. If you make 5% more, you always make 5% more. But if the difference in our outcomes is determined by a random die roll, you might never perform better than me even with a +1 (though never is unlikely, it's still quite likely that I will out perform you in many trials). With a 20 point range in the random element, a +1 difference will have a relatively small impact. Having a +1 gives you a theoretical edge, but one that may not be realized in actual trials.

We really aren't playing the same game, are we.

In my experience, a player will roll at least 20 times in any given combat -- that goes for 3.x and 4e, for spellcasters and muggles alike.

Certainly our understandings of random number generation and statistics are different...

 

[Jon_Dahl]

As I read this thread, it's easy to warn fellow DM's about rolling stats. It's possible to create huge gap between abilities, but let's be honest here: Great optimizer can deal with bad abilities, bad optimizer still sucks even with all 18's.

In my game I use the following point buy:
45 points.
All abilities start from 5.
6-13 cost 1 point per 1 increment.
14-16 cost 2 points per 1 increment.
17-18 cost 3 points per 1 increment.

If you only use Players' Handbook when you create your character (customizing Monks with splat books is allowed), you can put 2 extra points on your abilities (no cost).

Try this. It works great! One of the best point buy systems, if you don't mind me saying.

 

[On Puget Sound]

The system I used when I played 3e preserved randomness and equality:
1. Roll 4d6, take best 3, 6 times. Keep them in the order rolled for now.
2. Add up your net stat bonuses. We're looking for a net total of +6.
3. If your total is below +6, roll one die for each point you are short. Add 2 points to the stats indicated by the die rolls, or add 1 point if the stat was at 17. For example, if your stat totals are +3, roll 3 dice. If they turn out 4,4,5 then add 4 points to your 4th stat and 2 points to your 5th. If instructed to add to a stat that is already at 18, instead add 2 points to your lowest stat.
4. If, instead, your total is above +6 do the same as above, but subtract 2 points from the indicated stat (or 1 if it is at 4). If instructed to reduce a stat that is already at 3, instead reduce your highest stat.
5. Now assign your six stats as desired and apply racial bonuses.

This starts everyone with net +6 in stat bonuses, but with odd distributions to work around.

 

[The Human Target]

The system I used when I played 3e preserved randomness and equality:
1. Roll 4d6, take best 3, 6 times. Keep them in the order rolled for now.
2. Add up your net stat bonuses. We're looking for a net total of +6.
3. If your total is below +6, roll one die for each point you are short. Add 2 points to the stats indicated by the die rolls, or add 1 point if the stat was at 17. For example, if your stat totals are +3, roll 3 dice. If they turn out 4,4,5 then add 4 points to your 4th stat and 2 points to your 5th. If instructed to add to a stat that is already at 18, instead add 2 points to your lowest stat.
4. If, instead, your total is above +6 do the same as above, but subtract 2 points from the indicated stat (or 1 if it is at 4). If instructed to reduce a stat that is already at 3, instead reduce your highest stat.
5. Now assign your six stats as desired and apply racial bonuses.

This starts everyone with net +6 in stat bonuses, but with odd distributions to work around.

In my mind, if you go to this much trouble just use an array with some wiggle room or point buy.

 

[DumbPaladin]

QFT and to observe that such a set of stats for a Paladin would also work for Dudley Doright.

I play a paladin with Int 8. It's pretty fun to be Dudley Do-right, I have to say. Doesn't hurt to have a Charisma of 23 and generally win people over with my simple kindness.

 

[Nifft]

But comparing it to a salary makes no sense at all. There's no random element to the payment we'd get. If you make 5% more, you always make 5% more. But if the difference in our outcomes is determined by a random die roll, you might never perform better than me even with a +1 (though never is unlikely, it's still quite likely that I will out perform you in many trials). With a 20 point range in the random element, a +1 difference will have a relatively small impact. Having a +1 gives you a theoretical edge, but one that may not be realized in actual trials.

Certainly our understandings of random number generation and statistics are different...

Alright, how about this: we'll flip a coin. Heads, you give me $1.00; tails, I give you $0.95. We'll flip the coin a thousand times.

Would you agree to this set-up?

It's not a rip-off because I only have a theoretical edge, right? The coin could come up tails a thousand times in a row!

"d02 no KNOW limit", -- N

 

[Hand of Evil]

I guess it is your view and your GM's view on the subject, but if the characters are above average and the average is 10, then that should be their lowest stat. It's a house rule from my group, 4d6 minus lowest or 10 which ever is better.

 

[AllisterH]

Isn't this stat discussion highly dependent on the actual CLASS you were taking?

A 18 WIS, 10 DEX, 10 STR, 10 CHA, 16 INT, 10 CON means entirely different things for certain classes.

In 3.x for example, this is more than acceptable for a druid or a Wizard but pretty much unplayable for a monk.

Really..the best stat allocation method is the 4e gamma world (or variant of it). Give out a 18 and 16 and then simply roll the rest.

 

[Dausuul]

Alright, how about this: we'll flip a coin. Heads, you give me $1.00; tails, I give you $0.95. We'll flip the coin a thousand times.

Would you agree to this set-up?

It's not a rip-off because I only have a theoretical edge, right? The coin could come up tails a thousand times in a row!

"d02 no KNOW limit", -- N

Depends on how much money you have and how much I have. If you only have a few bucks on hand, and I have $1000 or more, this could be a winning game for me, because the odds are good that at some point you'll run out of money and have to stop playing, and I walk away with your cash. Gambler's ruin trumps your slight edge in the odds.

That said, I agree with the underlying point. Better stats are better stats. All other things being equal, +1 to a certain set of rolls is better than not +1 to the same set of rolls. Moreover, in actual practice, I have found that the effect of stat rolls is overwhelming in-game; the differences between a guy who rolled really well and a guy who rolled badly are obvious.

(Note, however, that the definition of "well" and "badly" is not what many people seem to think it is. If you have at least one solidly high stat, then depending on your chosen class, you may be doing well even if the rest of your rolls are mediocre--because there are classes like wizards that are almost totally dependent on a single stat. It's when you roll mediocre across the board, or when you want to play a MAD class and don't have enough good stats, that you're doing badly. Also note that the right player in the right campaign can make even a character with bad stats work--but you'll still be at a visible disadvantage compared to an equally well-played character in the same campaign with good stats.)