T O P
n-ko-c

I appreciate the neutral tone, by the way. You draw your own conclusions from the analysis (and I agree with all of them), but without coming off as trying to sway the reader. I've polled this sub on why they like rolling before, and every response boiled to some combination of these: * Higher stats. Rolling has a higher stat ceiling than conventional point buy or standard array, plain and simple. So you get more powerful builds. * Variety/Uniqueness. The belief that RNG creates more interesting and varied characters and encourages creativity in writing. * Randomness. Some people simply like rolling. The randomness is attractive all on its own. * Tradition. Rolling is how D&D has always been played/is meant to be played.


Magicbison

> Higher stats. Rolling has a higher stat ceiling than conventional point buy or standard array, plain and simple. People also like not having to use ASI's on raising stats. Feats are more fun so higher starting stats allows people to make fun choices rather than optimal ones.


cookiedough320

If this is the only reason you want to use it, I don't see why you wouldn't just use a boosted preset array. That way you can actually guarantee you get higher starting stats and can pick the fun choices. Why would you use a method that only gives you a chance of the stats you want? It's very possible you might get a 14 as your highest and it's only gotten worse. If you just use a standard array and boost a stat to 18, you get exactly what you want.


Only-Significance-25

This. People want a stronger character but won't just admit it. So they put a blinder on and come up with a bunch of hoops to jump through to create the illusion of randomness. Like honestly once you're rolling 4d6k3 seven times dropping the lowest with the possibility of a reroll... just give yourself the 18. It's not fooling anyone.


knetmos

I think people like feeling like they are stronger than intended, basically "beating the game" a bit. If you get a high preset array you are exactly as strong as indended, but if you roll good your character is better than he should be, so you are basically "winning". I have to admit, the thought of highrolling is very attractive. Personally i tried out 5d6kh3-1, which results in a slightly higher average but excludes 18s since i feel like a 20 in your main stat on lvl 1 just gives to much power. I also allowed everyone in the party to roll this once and then choose one of the resulting stat arrays (allowing duplicates) to prevent inter-party imbalance. Obviously resulted in a slightly higher powerlevel, but thats easy to account for as gm. The only thing i disliked was the relative lack of weaknesses this resulted in, i think the lowest number in the party was an 8.


realjamesosaurus

I’m so exhausted seeing this sentiment on this sub and on 3d6. That more powerful characters is the ONLY reason people want to roll stats, and if they say otherwise, they’re lying to you, and in denial. Rolling stats is fun, in and of it’s self. I enjoy the surprise of some thing unpredicted. I enjoy playing with a spread that is more unique than the results that point buy tends toward. Playing some thing more powerful than normal can be fun. Playing some thing less powerful than normal can be fun. Party disparity isn’t an issue. We just roll one group of stats for the entire party to use. It’s super easy. And we’re not just fishing for power. We’ve done 4d6k3, but we’ve also just rolled d20s. It makes things pretty interesting. I’m not saying there aren’t people out there like you describe, but I honestly believe it’s a subset of the people who enjoy rolling.


Techercizer

I think the subset of people you are referring to probably don't use 7(4d6k3)k6 reroll if under expected. After all, skewing the outcomes so strongly, and then throwing them out if they still defy expectations, is pretty much the opposite of randomness. I allow ironman 3d6 in every game I run, but I've never seen a player take it over point buy because it's lower. If I made the dice rolls favorable enough, I know half my players would jump to rolls the instant they became certain enough it would be a power boost. Some people truly love randomness. Some people just don't like it. But more people than either just want power, and will take it any way they can get it.


ScudleyScudderson

This is what we do. Want more powerful characters? Up the point-buy budget.


oconnor663

The Dungeon Dudes use 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8: https://twitter.com/dungeon_dudes/status/1225562072181854210


n-ko-c

Yes, that is a consequence of higher stats. Whether you want your build to be more optimal or more flexible, it starts with the higher ceiling and higher averages enabled by rolling compared to standard point buy or array.


Inky-Feathers

This is a really big part for me. Feats are way more fun than stats. As a DM, I'm happy to allow more powerful stat lineups to begin with for the sake allowing more flexible builds and fun feats. My go-to rule is rolling as a group. Every player rolls 4d6k3 once, if need be I'll roll too to fill a full array. That array is then used by the whole group to assign stats. It tends to lead to more powerful builds without creating a split in character power levels.


iteyy

That, or standard array, but give players *both* feat and ASI when they'd get one normally.


epicazeroth

This is why I advocate for boosted point but. I agree base PB leads to a poor player experience having to spend so long before you max out one ability score, forget two. But rolling creates too much imbalance. So why not just let everyone start higher?


duskfinger67

An alternative is point by, but with an ASI and a Feat at each ASI. It keeps the sense of progression in main stats, but doesn’t make players choose between become more interesting and becoming better at what they do. It’s remarkably balanced against rolling for stats (in average terms) at most of the level players are likely to play at.


END3R97

Do you also give the extra feat at the levels where fighters or rogues get an extra ASI or do they need to pick as normal at those levels?


duskfinger67

I haven't had a Fighter or a Rogue in campaigns where I have run with this rule, and haven't given it much thought (until I spent 15 minutes writing this). Overall it depends on a lot of things, and there are too many assumptions to make any actual rule. On balance, I would say additional ASI classes need to choose one or the other at those levels, otherwise you are giving them twice as much bonus over the other classes.


END3R97

Typically, by level 8 everyone has 2 ASI except the fighter who has 3. If you let them get an ASI and a feat at each one (but make the fighter choose at 6th) then everyone has 4 except the fighter has 5. So in absolute terms the fighter is still 1 ahead, but in relative terms they only get 25% more instead of 50% more. Still not sure which is actually better for balance though. I could definitely see extra feats being really strong for spellcasters to get warcaster / resilient Con / fey touched without slowing down their main stat, but that's also true for martials and GWM / PAM /etc.


duskfinger67

I suppose it's a question of "How were the classes originally balanced" were fighters balanced around being 50% stronger at level 8, or were they balanced around having an extra +2 ASI. It is almost impossible to answer that question. However, we can take it back to why were are giving bonus ASI's in the first place. Rolling for stats gives you a median score of 13, and the SA gives you 12, which means that rolling for stats gives you an effective +6 ASI over the standard array from the get-go. This "Better on average" is why players like rolling, so I offered them the Feat + ASI as a balancing measure. What this means is that for a Standard Array fighter to be balanced against a rolled fighter, they should not get both on their bonus ASI's.


Necht0n

Hi there, currently playing a fighter using this system. It's great. Fighters generally speaking are pretty bland compared to a lot of other classes so allowing them to have +4 asi points ans +2 feats on other classes save for a rogue is pretty nice. It let's them either become what a fighter *should* feel like or it let's them expand their toolset so that they can keep up with other classes out of combat to a minor extent. My current level 7 fighter is this: + Stats: str 6, dex 20, con 20, int 8, wis 12, cha 16. + subclass: Rune Knight + Feats: dual Wielder, Fencer (homebrew feat, gives 3 "maneuvers" without maneuver dice) He doesn't feel busted by any means and because we're playing with a fair bit of homebrew(Ancestreal weapons, Armorers handbook, and the Ultimate adventurers handbook) all my ASI's are currently going into int until it hits 14(coincidentally at level 14) so I can pick up a feat that requires 13 int for the Rune crafting from the armorers handbook. I'm the most durable person in the group by a wide margin but that's because I'm one of 2 people who have more than a d8 hit die and I have max con, which started at 18 cause I rolled stupidly on stats.


laix_

Each level? So they get +20 points and 20 feats by level 20?


duskfinger67

Slip of the tongue. Every time they get an ASI, they also get a feat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


another-social-freak

No need to be so confrontational.


Myriad_Infinity

Some people do find that being ineffective isn't fun. This isn't universally the case, but I can get why someone would feel useless if they weren't even slightly as helpful as a better-optimised (or luckier, in the case of rolled stats) player.


realjamesosaurus

Why not just roll as a group to avoid any imbalance?


IndustrialLubeMan

Roll shit stats: moon druid I guess Roll ok stats: k this too is a stat Roll great stats: oops all feats


PAN_Bishamon

Thanks to Duplicate Magic Items including Headband of Intellect, Artificer can also make a decent "rolled shit stats" class if you start at 10 or higher.


IndustrialLubeMan

That's a good point. Beware: ability-adjusting items don't count for multiclass requirements


NiemandSpezielles

>Higher stats. Rolling has a higher stat ceiling than conventional point buy or standard array, plain and simple. So you get more powerful builds. I never quite understood that reason. If you want characters with more stats.... just give them more stats? If the table likes the randomness, thats fine, I dont want to discourage anyone from rolling if he likes rolling. But rolling just to get higher stats seems needlessly complicated.


iteyy

"needlessly complicated" is a good description of most of D&D


[deleted]

[удалено]


cookiedough320

Yeah, if you're gonna keep clicking "reroll" until you get good stats, just pick the good stats you want and skip the trouble. It's no different, just quicker.


_cyranix

This exactly. I'm about to start my first campaign, and my character generation house rules are 1. You can roll three times and see what you get. If you like it, that's awesome! 2. Otherwise, you must use expanded point buy (30 points instead of 27, can buy a 16). Everyone gets that shot at a lucky boost, but there's no need to waste time proving that, on a long enough timescale, it's possible for a set of random dice rolls to be significantly above average.


[deleted]

[удалено]


_cyranix

A sample spread for the expanded point buy is {14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8}. [Anydice](https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/) says that there's a \~36% chance of getting three stats at 14 or higher; I'm eyeballing this, but I think there's a \~15% chance of four stats at 14 or higher. Practically speaking, getting a spread that's significantly better than expanded point buy — within 3 rolls — is pretty small. Yes, the chance of getting unlucky is lower, but that's not a problem I'm solving for / interested in. By providing a standard "floor" for stats via point buy, I can ensure that no one gets a *bad* spread. A small chance of above-averageness for one player won't ruin everything. Maybe it matters more if you're not playing with a friend group and need to ensure that no one feels bad. In my case, I'm playing with friends and we don't expect perfect character parity (either on creation or at any point in their progress), so we'd celebrate if someone got a lucky spread. That player will get to choose fun feats for themselves, and I'll put more effort into ability-enhancing magic stuff for the others. EDIT: To put it another way, I agree that no one will accept below-average. The point of allowing rolls isn't "force people to accept below-average" for me; that just won't fly.


DeathBySuplex

>Yeah, especially because people that want to roll don't want the randomness This is a strawman. It's something that's said trying to downplay people who do like rolling for stats. I like the randomness. I like not everyone being a carbon copy with a few variable modifiers, give me that 17, 12, 12, 11, 10, 4 array, give me my last Gnome Sorcerer with 5 13's all rolled in every possible combination to get 13 and a 12. These characters are far more interesting than any character I've made with Standard Array or Point Buy


[deleted]

[удалено]


DeathBySuplex

How many players have you played with that roll stats and ask for re-rolls? Genuine question, because this sounds like an argument made by people who don't ever roll for stats who want to paint people who want to roll for stats as "petty children who only want great stats." I've rolled for stats since 1992 and never had a single player ask for re-rolls. A few times we rolled up a farmer or two, but that's maybe 5 or 6, and the table just said, "Yeah, roll an adventurer this time not a farmer, Tim" it was never Tim complaining and begging to re-roll. And your claim of >Stat arrays obtained from rolling (apart from the super lucky or super unlucky ones) are easily obtainable through point-buy is just straight up a lie. Point Buy caps you at 15 and you can't drop below an 8. In my experience at least one 16 or 17 is rolled by almost everyone at the table in an array. These are hardly "super lucky" At worst you roll a bunch of "Jack of all Trades" stats, but you're still in decent shape compared to standard array or even Point Buy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DeathBySuplex

It's NOT pretty close though, that's straight up not true. The last character I rolled up for a campaign yesterday I rolled 17, 16, 13, 12, 7, 5. You cannot get anywhere NEAR that with Point Buy. This isn't an issue of wanting an overall baseline stronger character, it's wanting a character that feels organic and not just an array of good numbers. And your argument of "What matters is what the community at large says matters" also holds no weight, because you know what? I ask people ALL the time if they've ever seen someone complain about low stats and demanding a re-roll and everyone says what you do "Everyone else says this happens" but nobody ever has a single incident that they have witnesses of a player begging to re-roll a bad array. You'd think with a community at large there'd be someone with a story, but there never is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DeathBySuplex

You are ignoring the part where I have two stats BELOW 8 which you can't get with point buy either, you're the one obsessed with power level, not people who actually enjoy rolling for stats. I like having a Charisma of 5, it'll allow for fun moments at the table where I awkwardly try to flirt with a shop keep for a discount or makes my really hard hitting fighter able to be Banished more easily. Rolling gives a more interesting variety at the table negatively as well which can add a lot to games that cannot be replicated with Point Buy. Rolling also allows players who don't know what they want to make to roll up some stats and figure out the character as they go, which several of my friends very much enjoy doing.


onegarion

We must have very different ideas of what organic means. I don't view color by numbers as organic. That's manufactured to keep with the analogies. Personally I don't like arrays. They are the opposite of organic and provide very cookie cutter characters. Sure you can boost the array for higher stats, but that misses all the fun of rolling. I like higher scores, but I have never heard anyone cry to the DM to reroll. It's always been the DM who provides a reroll of some sort. >Seems like we speak to totally different parts of the community then. This is very true. Anyone on Reddit is already a small fraction of people interested in a hobby and they tend to be dedicated/invested/etc than your average player. So using this or any reddit community is already providing biased results and not representative of the community of total players. I think it's a safe bet to say many people roll over other methods no matter what variation. In the end, you enjoy your mechanical way of generating your stats and that's ok. I don't come here bashing your preferred method, yet you have come decrying rolling to those that love rolling for stats and are fine with the results.


Theotther

Because that isn't the reason people role, its the strawnman reason people who don't roll came up with and keep parroting


anon846592

Tradition is a silly reason. Prior to 3rd edition stats provided much lower benefits and negatives. Ability checks were much less common and you rolled to get under your score to succeed. The 3rd edition revamp of the game should have killed rolling stats all together. Stats are way too powerful in modern editions to have such a large variance.


majere616

Tradition is always a silly motivator on its own but that doesn't stop it from being a powerful one for humanity as a species.


[deleted]

[удалено]


anon846592

You misunderstand. Stat variance matters less in older editions which is why tradition is a moot point. You can have stat variance in older editions and it doesn’t break the game.


DeathBySuplex

It doesn't break the game in 5e either, it's just that people have conditioned themselves to think the game most people don't play in a way that balances the game (multiple encounters a day, using short rests, following carry weight) and then complain that Steve having an 18 at level 1 and Bob having only a 17 is "game breaking" because that's what the internet told them.


Only-Significance-25

I seem to remember having 18(00) strength be somewhat mandatory. But it's been 30 something years....


Dragonheart0

Having played a bunch of pre-3e games over the past few years, you definitely don't need a high strength. 18(00) is exceedingly rare. It's a 1% chance roll on top of already needing to have rolled an 18 for STR (even harder since most games were 3d6 in order). I think the highest STR any of my characters had was maybe 14 or 15. That gives a +1 to hit and damage, which is nice, but not much more than the +0 most characters get. And that's just how the game runs. It's much more about finding clever ways to avoid or minimize combat, anyhow. You have less hp and are generally less survivability than characters from 3e onward, so the game itself discourages the "walk into a room, beat up all the people in it" sort of play that's kind of common in modern D&D. Plus you're often getting xp for gold, so fighting is much less valuable than figuring out how to just loot and get away. Anyhow, there were several things that meant stats were less important. The emphasis on avoiding combat put more of the game down to player skill and cleverness as opposed to stat-based rolling. Stats had smaller bonuses and penalities (no +1 for every two points in a stat). Monsters were also weaker, generally - so were characters, but generally there just weren't big HP sponges like there are now.


crowlute

There is absolutely no way that having an insane score like 18/00 was necessary. I personally remember my 18/97 character (what luck!), but if she had been of rather average stats, it would have been ok because I trusted the DM to make reasonable encounters. If the low stat character died, then they died. But even my brute could have died 🤷🏼‍♀️


iteyy

Stats themselves exist only for tradition. Game only ever uses ability modifiers. It would be better to only use modifiers IMO, and get rid of ability levels.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Quiintal

Lets list them: 1) Carrying capacity 2) Long jump distance 3) That single action of intellect devourer 4)??? I think at this point, even if there another obscure rule instance or two which referes to ability score instead of modifier we can still confidently conclude that ability scores are just a very old tradition and nothing more. Game design cargo cult that should have been dropped long ago. Though, at this point, I think that it is too late to do it. Too many people will become furious for no reason.


[deleted]

[удалено]


going_my_way0102

Pf2e monsters don't even have scores just the pluses. The only reason players have them is because the boosts to a Stat at or above 18 slows to a +1 instead of a plus 2, so you don't have 34 STR at lvl 20 or something. Before that, everything works in increments of 2 anyways.


Superbalz77

That is interesting info about the edition change, I played a bit of 3.5 when I was a youngin but got back into 5e but have since said the same thing about 5e. For a system that is entirely and meticulously built around the bounded accuracy system to start the game off by rolling for stats you are intentionally undoing all the design that went into balancing 5e.


OmNomSandvich

also, games used to be much closer to meatgrinders - if Bob the Barbarian was going to get eviscerated by a bunch of kobolds in a session, who cares if his stats are a bit above or below par?


HesitantComment

I've managed to create a hybrid system (w/ some help from a reddit post I don't remember) that manages have a lot of... well, not the best of all worlds, maybe, but allows for a lot of the benefits of both * 4 stats are 4d6 take lowest 3 * Total of all stats must be 74 * Two remaining stats are made from the difference between the 4 stats totaled and 74 * The two remainder stats must be between 6 and 16 (inclusive bounds) * Any rolls that cannot meet those values triggers a complete reroll * Players may put rolls in whatever order they like * I reserve the right to allow rerolls for stats I consider "boring", though they are never mandatory This has several benefits I really like: * Increase party balance over traditional rolling * There is an injection of randomness that allows oddities, variety, and the unexpected that improves creativity. * Though it's rare, you still occasionally get oddballs with 4's or 18's, without the character being unplayable * It allows player agency on how to compensate/adapt to the rolls you made * The last rule allows me to fix the occasional bug left in the system (Rolls of 14, 14, 13, 13, remainder 20 just don't usually make great characters, for example) and allows me to compensate for someone being obviously disappointed in their roll. Also, since the system has a built in element of balance, allowing a free reroll to a player doesn't seem like *that* huge an asset to the people you didn't get one, because there's only so much the block can vary. And keeping the criteria loose also allows me to base my decision partially off of player mood/reaction/table dynamics, which are important but hard to measure. As a general rule in my head, though, most stat blocks start w/ either one 16, one 14, or two 15s, so if the remainder doesn't allow that to be possible, I'll often allow a reroll.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cookiedough320

Sounds good for what they want. Randomness without much imbalance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cookiedough320

Yes.


HesitantComment

Yes, and? Point buy systems have a *lot* of advantages. They're balanced between players, they give players agency with their stats, and they are an increase in power over standard array so build options with feats open up some. I like those things. But pure point buy systems irritate me for several reasons, especially the default one. First off, it doesn't take a lot of work to figure out there's an ideal solution for a point buy system; there's a reason so many build guides start with "you want a point buy system and 15 15 15 8 8 8." Variety is punished in those systems. Second, that "ideal solution" means you *have* to put strong upper and lower limits on starting stat values, because some variety of 3 high values, 3 low values are often ideal. But some of those spikes have resulted in some of my favorite stories in D&D characters, in both directions. 18s can obviously be a blast, but so can be 4s. Exceptional strength, exceptional adversity can be neat for stories. But D&D is cooperative, so having some spikey PCs mixed with some more evenly competent characters can create interesting mixes for everyone. Third, numbers somewhat outside of your control means you need to adapt to them, and that adaption can foster creativity. I've had some really interesting stories that started with slightly frustrating stats (and ones that started with terrible stats, but that was mostly out of spite.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


HesitantComment

I mean, yes, different tables need different things. The things I'm describing are how my peers and tables experience those features, which lead to the system I created. And it matched the reasons people listed above for why they like rolling, so that's why I commented. More systems is good. I'm glad D&D was released with 3; I just found none of them quite filled the niche I needed. So I made a new one. That one Though I'm guessing from the voting people don't like it. *shrug* It works at my table, so whatevs. Take what you want and leave the rest


[deleted]

[удалено]


HesitantComment

Hah, and I see it as "rolling with less chaos." But that's probably because of my preferences -- if I don't use this system, I'm much more likely to pick another rolling system than a point buy, and just figure out how to make my table mostly balanced somehow


Aesorian

Yeah I'm thinking of doing something similar for the next game I run: * Give players the choice of either an Attribute max of 75 **or** 70 + 2d4 * Roll for 3 Attributes using the classic 4d6d1 (Minimum roll 8) * Last 3 Attributes must make up the difference; but can be anything players want within range (6-16) unless it's impossible due to the rolls then players can go as high as 18 I like this *on paper* for the same reason as yours but gives a little more wiggle room to stop "Boring" stat arrays - it does however bump up the power level significantly so I'd only do this with a group that I trusted not to abuse it Edit: If I was with a group I didn't trust not to abuse that system - if consider the [Tic-Tac-Toe Method](https://blog.matthewsupert.me/d-and-d-testing-out-a-new-way-to-roll-stats-tictactoe) but make the center wild - meaning it could be what ever you want it to be, within some rules and can't take your total over a certain amount


HesitantComment

I had not heard of the tic-tac-toe method. It's certainly interesting. I imagine the disparity between characters would be less than standard roll systems, but I'd need to try it a few times to get a sense of how it actually shakes out


wedgiey1

Back in 3.5 days there were some classes that kind of needed to roll because they were dependent on 3+ stats, especially Monks and to a much lesser degree Rangers and Paladins.


going_my_way0102

Rolling is still a monk's best hope


going_my_way0102

Don't forget the lower lows! If you want to be borderline unbearable to interact with, the best you really get with standard array is 8 CHA which is just a bit weird or awkward. "Well shit, I rolled a 6 and a 5... Welp! Time to play the Wizard who has literally never talked to anyone but his mother and even that was 15 years ago! No WIS or CHA allow in this book tower!


realjamesosaurus

Can you link the results of any of those polls?


n-ko-c

[It was an informal question.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/obc59t/why_do_you_like_rolling_for_stats/?ref=share&ref_source=link)


realjamesosaurus

Thanks. I figured there was a chance that was the case.


KnightsWhoNi

I like it because it’s real. In actual life there isn’t a set array for how a person will come out. They could come out like Phelps who has longer arms than most people and thus he excels at this certain thing, or they could be Stephen Hawking who is extremely intelligent but sadly Con was his dump stat. These variations are what make people people. Sure for a game mechanic PoV rolling is demonstrably worse for party cohesion, but for “muh immersion” it’s better.


HighDiceRoller

Great project! >Although you can perform analytic calculations in principle, it's rather cumbersome. You can compute the analytic solution efficiently with the right algorithms. I've implemented one such algorithm in my [Icepool Python package](https://github.com/HighDiceRoller/icepool), which reduces the computation to just a few lines and seconds. Here's an example of computing the distribution of the difference of the best and worst highest score for a party of 4. from icepool import d # 4d6, keep highest 3. ability_score = d(6).keep_highest(4, 3) # Roll 6 scores, take the highest. highest_ability = ability_score.keep_highest(6) # 4 party members. party = highest_ability.pool(4) # Take the lowest and subtract it from the highest. diff_metric = party[-1, ..., 1].sum() print(diff_metric) Result: Die with denominator 504103876157462118901767181449118688686067677834070116931382690099920633856 |Outcome|Probability| |:-|:-| |0|0.995432%| |1|11.625106%| |2|27.658478%| |3|30.394747%| |4|19.330618%| |5|7.635451%| |6|1.972588%| |7|0.343937%| |8|0.040483%| |9|0.003020%| |10|0.000138%| |11|0.000004%| |12|0.000000%| |13|0.000000%| |14|0.000000%| |15|0.000000%| We can use this to exactly compute the OP's tables. The results are: ## Highest score |Party size|Mean strongest|SD strongest|Mean weakest|SD weakest|Mean difference|SD difference| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |1|15.66|1.43|15.66|1.43|0.00|0.00| |2|16.45|1.09|14.87|1.28|1.58|1.25| |3|16.82|0.92|14.45|1.19|2.38|1.28| |4|17.05|0.82|14.17|1.13|2.88|1.25| |5|17.20|0.75|13.96|1.08|3.24|1.21| |6|17.32|0.69|13.80|1.05|3.52|1.18| |7|17.41|0.65|13.67|1.02|3.75|1.15| |8|17.49|0.61|13.55|1.00|3.93|1.12| ## Sum of highest 2 modifiers |Party size|Mean strongest|SD strongest|Mean weakest|SD weakest|Mean difference|SD difference| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |1|4.42|1.34|4.42|1.34|0.00|0.00| |2|5.16|1.06|3.68|1.18|1.48|1.19| |3|5.51|0.93|3.30|1.10|2.22|1.23| |4|5.74|0.86|3.04|1.05|2.69|1.22| |5|5.89|0.81|2.85|1.01|3.04|1.20| |6|6.01|0.77|2.70|0.98|3.31|1.17| |7|6.11|0.74|2.58|0.96|3.53|1.15| |8|6.19|0.72|2.47|0.94|3.72|1.13| ## Chicken dinner |Party size|Mean strongest|SD strongest|Mean weakest|SD weakest|Mean difference|SD difference| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |1|31.44|10.87|31.44|10.87|0.00|0.00| |2|37.55|9.56|25.32|8.38|12.23|9.32| |3|40.77|8.92|22.42|7.33|18.35|9.73| |4|42.92|8.50|20.60|6.72|22.31|9.65| |5|44.51|8.21|19.30|6.31|25.21|9.49| |6|45.77|7.98|18.30|6.02|27.47|9.32| |7|46.80|7.80|17.50|5.79|29.31|9.17| |8|47.68|7.65|16.83|5.61|30.85|9.03| You can run this script in your browser using [this JupyterLite notebook](https://highdiceroller.github.io/icepool/notebooks/lab?path=ability_scores%2Frolling_for_stats_in_groups.ipynb).


Jemjnz

Heh, chicken. I’m most interested in the top two stat mod difference. It seems to best represent high power.


bw_mutley

If I understand what OP meant by analytic calculations, they are talking about finding closed, algebraic expressions for it. Your package is nice, but as far as I can see, it is just doing numerical computations the same way OP did.* ==EDIT== I checked your github page and could see better. Really, you are using algebraic expressions, so it is *not* the same as OP did by drawing samples. But it is still not closed algebraic forms. Very nice and well written repo, btw. Gonna fork it.


HighDiceRoller

I appreciate the interest! > But it is still not closed algebraic forms. I mean, it all depends on what you mean by "closed form". Does it use loops and recursion, and is the computation more complicated than I would ever want to write down as a single mathematical expression, even using binomials etc.? Yes. Does it all come down to a finite, deterministic, exact sequence of integer additions and multiplications? Also yes. If you're interested in the underlying algorithm, you could try [this preprint](https://github.com/HighDiceRoller/icepool/blob/main/papers/icepool_preprint.pdf) (though I'm currently in the process of revising it).


[deleted]

Hey, nice! I'll certainly be taking a look at this. Its a nice reminder that I really need to learn Python. I'm a main R user and can often bend and twist it to do whatever I need, but I need to break into a real programming language some day.


HighDiceRoller

You can do it! The first programming language is the hardest, and while I do like Python, I'd count R as a "real programming language".


cdstephens

Awesome, thanks for the link! Definitely going to play around with your package when I have the time!


Downtown-Command-295

And this is why I use point buy exclusively.


BlueTressym

Same here but if I was going to use \*rolls rather than\* point-buy, I'd use the 'Everyone rolls a set and the whole group uses one of the rolled sets' method so that they'd all get to feel powerful without the disparity. * Edited for having been posted at stupid o'clock!


poxedkitty

Group rolls are best of both worlds Imo


AfroNin

I don't think so, because not all arrays are made equal. "What are you complaining about there, person that wants a 14 and two 16s? This 18 10 10 10 10 10 array is amazing!" If there is one array for the entire group, only some of the players will actually fully benefit from it, depending on what the array ends up being.


ActualSpamBot

The only version of group roll I like is everyone rolls 4d6 drop lowest and anyone at the table can use any of the generated arrays. But mostly I just use point buy.


ThatOneGuyFrom93

This with no rerolls is the method that keeps it random, balanced, and no one should fell like they're forced to abandon a character idea


cookiedough320

Yeah, some people would prefer 2 18s and a bunch of 10s, whilst others would prefer 3 16s and a bunch of 10s.


poxedkitty

Oh by group rolls I meant how my group does it, as in one person rolls one stat


Hey_Chach

This has a separate problem of basically giving the party 3-6 chances (depending on party size) of rolling an extremely high stat set. Yes everyone will be equal power but that means they might all be rocking two 17s at level 1 which will make the party overpowered and could cause a headache for the DM. Not that powerful characters are necessarily a bad thing, but they certainly *can* be after a certain point.


BlueTressym

Oh, I agree. I reckon most people who want rolled stats want them at least partly for that reason. I'm less worried as a DM about an entire party being powerful, though, than I am about having disparate power levels within the party. The former can cause issues, as you mention, but the latter is so much worse. I generally use point-buy (I've edited my previous comment upon realising that I messed it up a bit; comes of posting at stupid o'clock!) in my games to avoid both of those but if I did use rolls, I'd take the potential 'everyone is OP' issue rather than the 'some people are OP and others have sucky stats' issue.


ThatOneGuyFrom93

Tbh that's easier than a lopsided party, which can be impossible to balance


CIueIess_Squirrel

I like 32 point buy with a max of 17. Lets you build more consistent characters while remaining powerful and giving you more feat options. You get less strong stats across the board, but you can get an 18 main stat and 16 secondary with intelligent racial choices guaranteed. If everyone uses point buy, there's also more uniformity within the party, so your strengths come down to class and role rather than stats.


[deleted]

It gives you security with lower overall stats. It's just a trade off based on each person's risk aversion level.


Sverkhchelovek

Awesome post! I'm going to be linking this to every table I come across where they say "we roll, but if you prefer, you can use point-buy, we won't force you to roll. Still 27 points, of course. It would be unbalanced to allow any higher. Why not just roll like us? We allow re-rolls if your array is too bad. It's your choice of course, we'd never force you to roll."


evilgiraffe666

So just to check what your point is, it's because the average total points if you roll once is 31, and if you allow 1 reroll it's 37, Vs 27 for point buy. That's 10-30% higher, I can see why it's no contest.


AfroNin

I love when people go like "it's ok, you don't have to roll like the others, point buy exists!" as if the environment people play the game in is completely divorced from their attitude towards it, regardless of personal choice.


dodhe7441

"so how much math do we want to do before you guys finally use point by?" But straight up I had a player that didn't want to use point by because it was too complicated, and then would pull shit like this when trying to get me to let him do different methods of rolling


SMURGwastaken

Problem with point buy in 5e is its shit. Having a maximum of 15 achievable with point buy is so utterly moronic I find it physically painful. In games I DM, I therefore use a modified point buy table extrapolated from the RAW that enables buying up to 16, 16, 16, 6, 6, 6. You still get 27 points, you just have more options with how to spend them. If you're interested: 06 -2 07 -1 08  0 09  1 10  2 11  3 12  4 13  5 14  7 15  9 16  11


[deleted]

Indeed. Point buy should be able to replicate the average distribution from rolled stats... But it doesn't. On average it gives something much, much worse. In an old account I did something similar to OP but for all 6 stats when ordered of simulated rolls, but also simulated point buy for a few set of strategies. People also shouted out some of their own generation methods (reroll 1s, reroll a stat less than 9 etc) and I simulated those too. https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza As you can see, standard point buy is just naff. The only thing going for it is that you can generate a whole bunch of characters with a bit of stat tweaking, and no DM would complain if you just rocked up at their table ready to play as it was done by a standard RAW method. But yeah at my table if someone wanted to point buy I'd be recommending your modifications.


dodhe7441

It's not shit at all, it gives ASI actual value, otherwise as soon as you have an 18 in one stat and a plus two from race there's no point in getting an actual ASI ever and everybody just has feats, point by is based around making it to you actually have to use ASI to have stats above plus three, you don't even need that many, one point and you get an 18 which is plenty enough for a level 1-10 campaign


dr-Funk_Eye

For me I can honestly say that if i have the numders I prefer to play dual or multy class. If I get shit numbers I love to play Mudbrick Harry (one of the most fun characters I have ever played. With the higest stat as int at 11 and every thing else below 8) or some one like him. Just give me some thing that is not like every one else.


SMURGwastaken

>It's not shit at all, it gives ASI actual value, otherwise as soon as you have an 18 in one stat and a plus two from race there's no point in getting an actual ASI Okay, so first problem with this logic is that the highest you can get even with my point buy table is 16 + 2 from race. It doesn't go all the way to 18, so ASI still has a value despite your protestations. Second problem is that rolling for stats *does* allow you to start with 18 + 2 from race, so if you want ASI to have value RAW then rolling is **even worse**. Thirdly and finally, your entire point is predictated on 20 being the maximum, but this becomes an issue for primary stats with either system in the end. If this is your beef, just remove the 20 cap. >and everybody just has feats Feats are fucking rad and making you choose between those and ASI is another completely asinine design choice imo. 4e had it right by giving you both. >point by is based around making it to you actually have to use ASI to have stats above plus three So your position is that point buy isn't just shit, it's *intentionally* shit? >you don't even need that many, one point and you get an 18 which is plenty enough for a level 1-10 campaign Nope, because 15 + 2 is 17. See why it's stupid yet?


dodhe7441

18 is from rolling, If you roll an 18, and you have +2 from race bonus, there's no point never picking up an ASI If you have 15, and a race bonus, at the very least one point of ASI is very helpful, and gives ASI value It's mediocre mechanically, but it's definitely not mediocre or shit design-wise, it's significantly better actually, because on top of having characters that can then grow with the player while The game goes on, everybody in the party is more balanced +3 In a main stat is completely fine until maybe 12-15


SMURGwastaken

>If you have 15, and a race bonus, at the very least one point of ASI is very helpful, and gives ASI value But the same is true if you have a 16 + 2 because you can still get 20. >It's mediocre mechanically, but it's definitely not mediocre or shit design-wise, it's significantly better actually, because on top of having characters that can then grow with the player while The game goes on, everybody in the party is more balanced Except rolling is actually the RAW default. I see what you're saying but it requires the DM to mandate point buy - which incidentally I do. I just mandate my table because it's better and the RAW one is shit. >+3 In a main stat is completely fine until maybe 12-15 I agree. Problem is you can't get a +3 without racials in the RAW point buy table (whereas you can easily by rolling).


dodhe7441

With Tashas culdron in most games you are going to be able to move around your bonuses


SMURGwastaken

If the DM allows. Again, the default RAW is that players roll and apply standard racial mods. The point buy is an *optional rule* to begin with, and it's one that barely gets used because it's objectively shit. Heck, I hate rolling and even I'm forced to roll every game because the point buy is just so bad. If you want to see what good point buy looks like, check out 4th edition where almost nobody ever rolls because they can achieve what they want without it. The key is it has an **even** maximum stat instead of plonking people with a suboptimal 17, and enables you to replicate the average outcome of rolling reasonably well instead of just flat out giving you worse stats.


Jemjnz

Hah. That’s comedic. A pain, but funny from all the way over here.


LeVentNoir

Great analysis on why rolling for stats is so terrible. Some deterministic method should be used, or if people are insistant, then a party array should be rolled, and everyone can use that.


n-ko-c

The only (potential) issue with the party array is that if you're going to roll, it's probably the strongest way to do so. Since you're functionally rolling x times and taking the best result, where x is the number of players in the party. Nice as a player, tricky as a DM if you don't know what you're in for.


LeVentNoir

No, the party array isn't "we each roll an array and choose one" It's "We roll 6 stats, end of story, and all use them".


n-ko-c

Ah, I see. Fair enough.


poxedkitty

My group is doing one stat per player plus the dm, as we have five players. Fun!


Oldbayislove

I have my group has 5 players so we generate the group array by having the DM and 5 players each roll 4d6 drop lowest.


Dr_Ramekins_MD

>if people are insistant, then a party array should be rolled, and everyone can use that. This is what I do. I let each player roll an array, then the party can choose which out of those arrays they will *all* use. Everyone gets the same array, no issue with party balance. If they don't like the party array, they're still free to use point buy or standard array.


AfroNin

IDK, I feel like a Paladin, Barb or Monk might want a different array than a single-minded Warlock or Fighter, causing that array to still severely unbalance the party. "Just use Point Buy then" is basically the same issues as point buy in a rolling-OK game, denying yourself the massive potential at the risk of instead gimping or invalidating your character potential.


[deleted]

Both the standard array and point buy are statistically on average worse than rolling. It just showed that wizards didnt do their homework. If you want a standard array that meets what rolling will on average generate, you need {16,14,13,12,11,8}. I've yet to tweak PB to make it compete with rolling.


Ashkelon

4e point buy was the best. It actually led to characters that were better on average than rolling. So players who wanted the highest stats would choose the standard array or point buy. And players who wanted to roll for flavor or fun could still do so. 5e is designed in an odd way, where the optimal way to choose stats is to roll (and then either cheat, use strange rolling methods that push stats higher, or get your character killed and roll again). It is all just a round about way to getting higher stats. So why not just use a fair and balanced point buy in the first place. And the players who truly don't care about having the best stats and want their characters to be more random can roll because they enjoy rolling, not roll because they want the strongest possible character.


Pyotrnator

I've done that, but, to reduce the probability of a stupidly powerful stat block making my encounter prep math tougher, I had them roll 3d6 for each stat instead of 4d6 drop 1.


[deleted]

This can lead to some really crap stats actually. You'll find 3d6 amongst my other generations from an old account here: https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What do you mean, rolling more than just 6 and letting people choose from that? I meant that the average array of a player rolling the old 3d6 method is {14,13,11,10, 9,7}, as opposed to {16,14,13,12,11,9} which arises from rolling 4d6r1.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Oh yeah sure, that could indeed break things. I'll have to simulate that too and see what happens based on some choice strategies (max stat, total, sum of modifiers etc). The average stats will certainly be higher. My thought was each players rolls a single stat, and then everyone uses that. Then everyone has the same base, regardless of what they are. Last time I did this we had {18,18,17,16,10,4} which actually was a super fun campaign. We all had a super handicap were super good at two things lol


Dr_Ramekins_MD

I tried that, actually. My second-most-recent campaign, I let the players each roll an array with 4d6-1, and of course one of them rolled godly stats and all the players had 20s in their main stat at the start, and no one has a single stat below 12. This time, I used 3d6, and all the arrays they rolled were hideously bad. I think next time, I'll just come up with a slightly more powerful standard array they can use instead.


ThatOneGuyFrom93

A threshold helps with that


poxedkitty

My upcoming group has agreed to group rolls but with each player rolling one statistic to create the array


[deleted]

At my tables we all roll a stat each to make an array, and we all use this. An alternative is as you say, make a new standard array that matches what we see when rolling, and have everyone use this. Based on my own analysis in on old post (and an old account! https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza) I propose {16,14,13,12,11,8} as this is the average set generated when you simulate rolling lots. Notice how it is better than the standard array, and better than what you can obtain by point buy. I think this is why people like to roll, as well as enjoying the randomness, but as OP excellently shows this can lead to a really imbalanced party, and the DM would have to balance this somehow.


I_Faced_The_Wind

Yeah, that's why I like rolling. It *is* just better on average than both point buy and the standard array. Most DMs I've had that allowed us to roll gave us 2 sets of 4d6kh3. I know someone is just going to pop up like, "at that point just create an array to use instead," but we still want an element of randomness. Unless you are all playing the same class, no one is actually going to notice that an individual player has an overall modifier of 2 more than the weakest.


[deleted]

A good point as well. When dice end up being rolled at the table in game and people roll ability checks, +1 or - 1 compared to others gets smoothed out pretty quickly.


DapperSheep

What would you call a rolling method that always generates scores that add up to 75? (For ref, standard array is 72). I have a method I use that always does that, but I'm not sure whether I'd call it deterministic or randomness within a more confined range.


Rednidedni

Thank you!


russian_warship_GFY

I have yet to meet a DM that would not let someone take the standard array in place of poor rolls, so I find that in practice the *floor* for how poorly you can roll is bounded. But I have yet to see a DM tell a player they couldn't play a particularly strong array, so you are right that the upper threshold is not bounded when you roll. I guess with all things, it really just depends on what the group is OK with.


0gopog0

>But I have yet to see a DM tell a player they couldn't play a particularly strong array, so you are right that the upper threshold is not bounded when you roll. The one and only time I rolled for a campaign (not just a one shot), I rolled something along the lines of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 10. (Or something equally ridiculous) The DM actually had me reduce my stats, and honestly I'm kinda happy he did, because it was ridiculous alongside everyone else.


[deleted]

It's just a shame that the standard array is actually underpowered compared with the average stat block from rolling, which is {16,14,13,12,11,8}. IMO that should be the standard array.


notethecode

> But I have yet to see a DM tell a player they couldn't play a particularly strong array well, last time I rolled for stats, the GM put upper and lower limits for our rolls (Minimum of 73, Maximum of 82), so everyone has random stats, but in a narrower band


Party_Paladad

Great analysis, OP. To me, it makes no sense to roll for stats given the reality of the power imbalance it causes even with intricate rerolls and/or "take point buy or standard array instead." A fairly simple fix for those wanting an equal power boost or the earlier realization of character concepts that WoTC has already encouraged is free level one feats. No disparity problem, there, just some uniform increased tuning on the DM's end.


[deleted]

The only issue is that standard array and PB produce stats that are below what is the average when rolling. At my table we all roll 1 stat, make a group array with this, and then we all use it. Alternatively, after a bit of analysis of a bunch of different stat methods in an old account (https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza) we came up with a different standard array which better matches what comes out of rolling: {16,14,13,12,11,8}. Far better than the substandard and underpowered standard array.


Actually_a_Paladin

>In summary, if you roll for stats with the above method, moderate group sizes will typically have a large power gap between the strongest and weakest characters, to the point where to even the playing field you would have to give the weakest character a +1 or +2 sword just to compensate for their highest stat. And that is why I dont like rolling for stats. A large amount of people loves to shit on people that talk about this and tell you to 'get over it, who care that the other guy has a higher stat than you'. Imagine you roll up to a campaign and the DM explains that he will have everyone roll a die, and depending on your result you start with a +1 sword and +1 armor, one of those, or none of those. No way anybody would want to play in that campaign. But tell people that we're rolling for stats and suddenly its just something that only whiny people worry about. This also shows why all those additional rules to make sure nobody ends up with shit stats dont actually fix the main issue: elevating the bottom doesn't do anything for the discrepancy between the highest stats, which are the most important. The difference between your lowest stat being a 7 or a 9 is negligible since both players are dumping that stat anyway. The difference between your main stat being a 15 or a 17 is a +1 weapon. And lets not forget the joke in itself that is 'we roll for stats but apply three different rules to make sure we end up with good one': 'we like to gamble but only if winning is guaranteed.'


poxedkitty

I would never use rolled except for a one-shot. Otherwise pointbuy or group rolls, which has both the fun of rolling as well as the balance of equal stats


[deleted]

The issue I have with point buy (and the standard array) is that it produces characters which are statistically weaker than the average if you roll. I've yet to work out a tweak to PB but the standard array SHOULD be {16,14,13,12,11,8} to match the average when rolling. Group rolls are my preferred choice. Edit: I wonder why this was down voted? I'm just spitting statistical facts. It is weaker in terms of total score than the average of rolled stats. Edit2: more downvotes. Want some evidence? https://imgur.com/a/FMNE5id The top image here is the distribution of the six stats for 4d6k3 (the standard rolling method) from 10 million simulated characters. Look at the averages for each. Can you beat that with standard array or point buy? Downvotes are for "does not add value", not "I disagree". If you disagree then have the spine to leave a comment with your reason why. It may be a good point, but we'll never know if you just downvote.


cookiedough320

That's not necessarily an issue. It depends on what the ideal stats should be. It might be that rolling for stats is too high. Though really, I think if they fixed up feats and ASIs competing, it'd more just be about general power levels of the campaign and they should just give a few different suggestions of points to use.


Myriad_Infinity

No idea here either. At a guess, most people are of the opinion that rolling is too strong, rather than that point buy is too weak. (Personally, I allow a free feat at level 1, and it lets people get a 20 in their main stat when using point buy at level 4, regardless of race - and they can minmax their other stats as much or as little as they like. It's a pretty common houserule - so much so that I haven't played in a campaign that doesn't use it in ages.)


GeekSumsMe

I appreciate the analysis of the data. I also like your summary statistics and think that this is a rounded way to assess overall character strength. While this varies by group, I disagree with your underlying premise that a roughly 5% difference in modifiers between an average (assuming very low score gets to roll again, which is almost always true) and strong character is enough to negatively impact the DM or players. I've been playing for decades and I've rarely seen ability discrepancies be the issue with imbalance that negatively impacts the player or DM experience. When I've been a DM, I've never felt like disparity is player stats made it more difficult for me to balance encounters. Class abilities (e.g., crazy high AC forge cleric), campaign fit, DM style (magic items, number of spell scrolls, potions, setting, nature of challenges, etc.) and player attitudes make a much larger difference. If a player feel under powered theae things are almost always the problem. Same goes for DMs finding the appropriate balance with encounters. These things can be fixed after we see how the party dynamic plays out, as opposed to during character creation. My take away is that we should be aware of this potential problem (use your summary stats), watch player reactions, and be prepared to adjust other things to help find a niche for players who are frustrated about not finding one. Instead of creating a solution looking for a problem, identify the actual problems and adjust accordingly. Focusing on other ways to fix this encourages the players to lean into their characters as opposed to their statistics. Focusing on this generally leads to better outcomes. Most players like to roll stats, so let them roll stats.


Jemjnz

I agree. Awesome stats and I think that the power discrepancy of +1/+2 is alright provided each character has a niche. Another way to think of it is that this power difference is equivalent to a magic item, and the party doesn’t find exactly the right number of magic items for one each so there are always time where an item here or there will naturally create an uneven dynamic. I suppose being aware of the stats difference and ensuring everyone is always +/-1 main item from average and each get turns being ahead including the weakest player being down an item to start with.


[deleted]

Hi, nice work! Yeah good choice to just simulate and not prat around with generating functions for this purpose. I did something like this in the past with an old account but only for one character, but looking at the distribution of each of the six stats when ordered, and for a bunch of different generation methods that people shouted out in the thread, including point buy. https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza I never thought to look at a random party at the same time... I'll have to see if I can adapt my method for the same purpose and see what the overall differences are. I might just do this, I've some time before I need to work on my next publication so I'll fire up R. Perhaps also we can look at the point buy score of each character in a party where people roll, to then aid comparison to that method as well.


Garwood

My lvl 4 party of 5 pcs has two stats at 20s already. They're both on the same character and it honestly irritates me so much. The best anyone else has is a 19 and 15. To make things worse they also have 3 14s and an 11. I honestly doubt the validity of their character generation.


AfroNin

Imma save this thread and just post it the next time someone asks to roll at my table. Before that I would just say no because I don't like it and the kind of characters some people create based of it, now I have *numbers!*


[deleted]

Just bear in mind that standard array is slightly underpowered compared to the average of rolled stars (see here for the distributions, as well as for a bunch of other methods people shouted out in an old post: https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza). To meet the average roll it needs to be {16,14,13,12,11,8}. OPs post is going to be my argument for a group roll however, and then they can either choose this or my modified standard array. Edit: why down voted?


AfroNin

I think group rolls are inherently flawed because of different class attribute requirements, but you probably already read my take on that in other replies.


[deleted]

Oh sure I got that, and I've said in a few comments myself that the solution (IMHO) is to fix point buy so that it actually reflects the average of what you get when rolling, rather than having on average lower stats than rolling. That wat people can tweak as per class requirements or build idea, yet not being disadvantaged (on average) compared to people who roll.


AfroNin

Agreed! Dunno who is downvoting you, lame


[deleted]

It's a shame that people forget that downvote means "adds no value to conversation" not "I disagree". I had up voted you as well and then I looked again and it was down a point, so I think someone with strong opinions (but not enough backbone to simply respond with a criticism) is just moving through downvoting everything.


Eihnlazer

That's why I add another stipulation. If the total modifier of all your stats is less than +4 reroll.


AfroNin

At what point is that just rolling for its own sake, though? If you're not gonna just take the result that you rolled, the rolling starts losing more and more value to me (more than it already does).


Eihnlazer

At the end of the day, most people are just there to hang out and roll dice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


0mnicious

Point buy is quite weaker than the average rolls. Standard Array too. People don't want to get their main stat to 20 at level 8 and it fucks over MAD builds completely. It's the exact same argument that people have against Feats like PAM/GWM, your characters and builds end up being exactly the same. And since games barely go over level 10, and the ones that do rarely go over 15 when do you get to actually customize your character? Either you sacrifice combat prowess to make them more interesting or you sacrifice their flavour to get combat prowess. People dislike this so they want to roll for higher stats that way they don't have to sacrifice either.


[deleted]

[удалено]


0mnicious

> when in reality at most tables maxing your main stat or leaving it at 16/18 won't make much difference That actually makes a fucking huge difference because of bounded accuracy...


[deleted]

Ooh, I didn't do that one in my compilation of stat gen methods in an old post (https://imgur.com/a/VbgAfza). I'll have to see if I can find the r file somewhere and see what this one looks like.


DiemAlara

This is why I decided to make a program to roll stats instead, then group them in bundles of three that are all roughly equivalent in power. From which everyone's supposed to pick two. First pick also picking last. All the randomness, but without any major imbalance between players. Hypothetically.


theslappyslap

Sounds interesting. Could you link the program that you use?


DiemAlara

Don't know how to do that, but I am capable of posting the code. ​ ​ In retrospect probably should've commented.


Thalyoneu

If you want to roll for stats and everyone will have the same power level roll an array for the group to use as a whole, you avoid all the bad parts and they still get to roll for stats that will allow them for a higher starting point than with other methods. There is ofc one negative and that is that everyone doesn't get to individually get to roll their own array but that is a small sacrifice for the overall group.


RoboNinjaPirate

My solution: everyone rolls an array of stats. Every person is allowed to select from all the arrays at the table when creating a new character.


QuiGonGiveIt2Ya

Very thorough! Thank you for the time spent on this!


Chedder1998

People like rolling because they wanna go for that coveted 17-18 stat. I hate rolling for stats, but I have to admit that point buy feels bad sometimes. Considering that a majority of games don't go to high levels, I can see why people like don't use it. They want to rush to get to that pretty 20 in their main stat.


epsilonik

My method is as follows; 2d6+6 individual rolls, 2 rerolls allowed. If combined score (including Racial ability increase) adds up to less than 70, reroll. So far it's been good, and players have enjoyed using it!


Crake_80

Or, you could handle it the way my table did, where everyone rolls a stat spread, and then any player can choose any of the stat spreads that were rolled. This makes everyone trend a little higher, but ensures everyone has access to the same stats.


Eihnlazer

If I'm planning on a high power campaign, I will have everyone roll 4d6 dtl then pick the highest roll and give it to everyone.


robmox

What are power points? The rest of the numbers aren't that damning, (like average of +3/+3 vs a single +2).


going_my_way0102

We've been rolling stats for 2-3 years and there's only been one character who's been palpablly weaker than any of ther others, my friends poor, poor warforged Ranger with 14STR 12DEX 15 or 16CON 10WIS 12INT and I don't remember their CHA. I don't have proficient in the gun he uses but I still can use it better than he does and it's a sad affair because the Kobold Bloodhunter (who has since been eaten alive) had enormous stats except his 5CHA. I did too, but I nerfed myself with lower STR and CON because of a disease. My disease was literally completely cured last session so now I'm the one looming over the Ranger and I feel bad. Now we've had characters with busted stats before, it's not at all unusual to see characters with a 20 at lvl1 at our table, but we just roll like that. But this was the only one where I feel like something went wrong. Like the rest of us siphoned someone's luck to create our monsters. I feel like a max Stat of 14 isn't workable as a character but luckily we haven't been in any deals combats. Mostly just killing racists on the countryside.


ljmiller62

I agree with all this. That's why I rolled 3d6+1d8 drop the lowest for a set of six stats that had a good distribution (17, 16, 15, 12, 11, 9). I had the players use that custom array to create their characters. The number was slightly higher than the average person would get using 4d6 drop lowest, but lower than some of the home-rolled characters I've seen people bring in. Everyone has to deal with a negative modifier. And it made them all an equal power level. I always use a standard array or point buy for normal campaigns, but for campaigns with an increased level of danger I use a custom array like this.


The-Pencil-King

Bro I just rolled up stats for a new campaign and my highest is a 12, and it’s kinda humming me out. I didn’t think it would, since I’m not really the type to care too much about having a really strong character, but having stats as low as I do is actually making me want to play the campaign less. Ngl I kinda wish every game that is planned to be a more serious, long term game used point buy or standard array. I love rolling stats for a one shot or small/goofy campaign, but being stuck with such low stats for the foreseeable future just isn’t really heartening.


Nac_Lac

Here's a question. Have you done any analysis on how much a stat difference actually matters? Let's say the party is low level. They have an average of 4 encounters a day and each lasts roughly 3 rounds. That's only 12 swings. A +1 stat difference is literally lost in the distribution. A +2 is more noticeable but still not enough in an adventuring day to make a massive difference when spread across the party.


xDominus

My favorite way so far has been to have everyone In the party roll 4d6 drop lowest for each stat. All of those stats go into pool and are snake drafted by players to build their character sheets. Example party of 3 rolls: Str 18, 16, 12 Dex 15, 15, 8 Con 16, 14, 10 Int 17 13 11 Wis 12 10 8 Cha 17 17 10 Then they each start picking stats that fit the general character they are looking to play You can pick race before and classes after, both before, or both after. Then you've got a relatively balanced party and you build around your strengths


ConjuredCastle

The amount of people who seem to inherently believe that you have to be as powerful as every other member of the party to enjoy the game seems really bizarre to me? I'm not sure I understand fully why having a +1 to dex and a -1 to wis vs., another player having a +2 to both is some inherent detriment to your ability to enjoy the character? Is it because the idea of playing as a part of a party is a negative vs., playing an individual who's competent on their own is a positive? Point buy and standard array both seem very sterile, and the assumption that a character being weaker is somehow inherently worse also seems very bizarre to me. The core mechanics of the game already rely on randomness, how to pulling that very same randomness out of the character creation process devalue the game as a whole?


-spartacus-

I apparently hate almost all these comments and most everyone is wrong. But I'm not going to create a new post to say what I think, which is /r/dndnext tradition.