Hello everyone,
I'm probably going to start a homebrew campaign quite soon with five players. All of them have considerable experience in Pathfinder.
Now I was thinking that since they kind of know their way around optimizing a character (although they're not necessarily powerplayers by default) it would be fun to try an experimental way of rolling stats. Which would work as follows:
You may roll 4d6 six times, and take away the lowest die every time. The average modifier over six stats needs to be at least a +1, and you need to have at least one 16. Now here's the catch:
The first number they roll goes into Strength, the second into Dexterity, etc. They cannot switch the numbers around the different ability scores. They will have to build an effective character around the potentially oddball stats they have.
Obviously, I understand that this is limiting players tremendously in their freedom to build whatever character they want, and might end up in a weird party composition. but I talked to most of the players about this and they seem pretty interested and up for a challenge.
I'm wondering if any of you have experience with similar rolling systems, or how some of you guys would work with this?
I've tried a couple of rolls myself and sometimes I end up with weird sets like only a high Dex and Con and pretty much nothing else ;P or maybe a character that has pretty nice stats overall but both a low Dex and Con (both of which are usually stats that never go below 10)
Could you share your thoughts?
Even maybe roll some stats with this system and then think about what kind of character you would build around it? I've tried some myself but I'm curious what others end up with.
Allowed material is pretty much anything in the Paizo official material but not campaign-specific material.
EDIT: Oh, and Core Races only!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my standard way of rolling stats (when we don't use pointbuy). It's important to be prepared to play a crap PC though, you can be forced to accept some very poor choices.
One of the guys in our group really didn't like doing this, but we adjusted it slightly and allowed him to swap one pair of stats which seemed to be enough flexibility for him (he just hates having a low dexterity). Might be worth bearing in mind as an option.
|
I got:
Str 14
Dex 11
Con 10
Int 14
Wis 17
Cha 13
Looks like a good fit for a cleric, but it wouldn't be too hard to turn it into a mystic theurge. Say a human, bonus into intelligence for a 16, then go wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10. It's not something I normally do, so that's actually pretty cool.
The 16 minimum made me reroll. (Or was it the intent to make the highest ability a 16 if you didn't have one?) Point buy: 27, not bad! One thing I like about rolling stats is not having to min-max your point buy.
One of the guys in our group really didn't like doing this, but we adjusted it slightly and allowed him to swap one pair of stats which seemed to be enough flexibility for him (he just hates having a low dexterity). Might be worth bearing in mind as an option.
It's definitely a good option to fix the totally broken stat arrays. Thanks :)
It's not something I normally do, so that's actually pretty cool.
Which is one of the things I think is fun about this! :D
The 16 minimum made me reroll. (Or was it the intent to make the highest ability a 16 if you didn't have one?) Point buy: 27, not bad! One thing I like about rolling stats is not having to min-max your point buy.
You did it the right way. The intent is to re-roll if there is no 16, you don't automatically get a 16 if you didn't roll one.
I got:
Str 14
Dex 11
Con 10
Int 14
Wis 17
Cha 13Looks like a good fit for a cleric, but it wouldn't be too hard to turn it into a mystic theurge. Say a human, bonus into intelligence for a 16, then go wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10. It's not something I normally do, so that's actually pretty cool.
Mystic Theurge does become an interesting option indeed. The potential is there at least! I would probably try and focus on offensive cleric spells and defensive / buffing / summoning wizard spells, since Wisdom is a stronger stat.
Personally, with this stat array, I'd probably play a support cleric. Normally clerics have little use for intelligence but with this stat array it might actually be worth getting a Trickery or Knowledge domain and put those extra skill ranks to use. Maybe a Halfling cleric with the Trickery Domain is pretty cool. A religious thief? Maybe elf would be even better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would make the minimum point buy about 16, right? (16, 12, 12, 12, 10, 10) You're actually a pretty generous DM.
Here's some stuff on rolling 4d6 drop lowest.
Str 18
Dex 7
Con 8
Int 16
Wis 11
Cha 14
This one is a little bit harder. I'd probably go for wizard, the penalties hurt real bad, but it's a nice challenge. Nah, Scratch that. Investigator with the empiricist archetype. Probably human again.
Point Buy: 27 again.
Have some sample rolls
15,13,10,15,17,16
15,13,18,8,7,17
9,16,14,17,11,15
16,13,14,12,12,12
8,17,12,13,10,14
8,17,15,15,13,14
14,10,16,12,11,16
16,16,14,16,10,13
15,11,14,9,12,17
13,16,12,11,15,15
There were 15 rolls that were rejected for not having a minimum of 16 somewhere or an average mod lower than +1
Now, as for what I would personally consider playing.
10,15,10,11,17,12
Strength and Con are weak, so melee is out of the question. Dex is OK and the only good stat is wisdom, so a non-battle wisdom based full caster is probably the best option. Most likely a Dwarf, to shore up Con and keep Wis nice and high.
15,13,10,15,17,16
The weak Con, so-so Dex and mediocre Str discourage melee. I guess you could make a half decent Paladin or Oradin, but it's probably better to just stick with a wisdom or charisma based full-caster and stay out of harm's way (and avoid those fort saves). A race with a Con bonus would be nice, although not essential.
15,13,18,8,7,17
Oh, hey...good Con this time. Unfortunately, the other physical stats aren't great, so the only good options are charisma based casters who can make up for the mediocre strength or don't care.
9,16,14,17,11,15
Weak Strength, so non-dex Melee or Archery are out. Con and Dex aren't bad, so the character can survive in melee. With the high intelligence, a bog-standard Magus build would work nicely. Int based full-casters are fine too. A rogue or a Swash wouldn't be horrible, although I would personally want Wis to be about 3 points higher to shore up their horrible will saves.
16,13,14,12,12,12
OK-not-great stats for most martial types. So long as you don't plan on doing much casting this works for pretty much anyone who plans on wielding a big hunk of sharp pointy metal.
8,17,12,13,10,14
Some sort of dex based combatant, like a Rogue or a Swashbuckler. The weak Wisdom hurts though, and the meh Con score makes Rogue kinda questionable. I guess a Dervish Dance Bard isn't too bad either.
8,17,15,15,13,14
Same as above, but with the better Con rogue isn't such a pain. Dervish Magus is also possible.
14,10,16,12,11,16
Charisma based caster. Strength based hybrids and full-casters both work (although the low dex is a problem). Paladins would work well too.
16,16,14,16,10,13
Good Str, Dex and Int, and a high enough Con to boot. Martial types aren't bad on this, although that meh Wis score doesn't make me too happy. Otherwise, Int based caster. Oh yeah, and there are finally some stats that aren't terrible for archers.
15,11,14,9,12,17
Cha based caster. Again, low dex is a liability, so I would lean towards a non-martial fullcaster. Or a paladin.
13,16,12,11,15,15
The second set of stats that aren't terrible for an archer. You would need to go with Dex or Archery if you want to contribute with weapon damage, or you could just go with a non-int based fullcaster (or both)
My impressions:
The minimum requirements eliminated a lot of crappy rolls, which is a good thing. Low Con and Dex scores were a problem, however, and I will echo Steve's suggestion that a single stat swap be permitted to help mitigate this. It's not exactly ideal when one player gets to choose between any class that doesn't need a great Int or Cha, and the other gets to choose between a Wis based support caster and...a Wis based support caster.
|
Nothing important to add, I just rolled it to see how it went and got a crazy nice stat array:
Str: 16
Dex: 15
Con: 16
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Cha: 14
Probably a fighter based character, but could go into a huge variety of things. Add in the racial modifier to strength presumably and you could make an excellent barbarian too.
I do notice that I have to re-roll quite a few times before I reach a stat array that fits all the prerequisites.
Str 15
Dex 13
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 14
Cha 18
This one's pretty high on average. Looks like a Bard to me. Or an (aberrant?) Sorcerer with shapeshifting and bad-touch ambitions. Battle Oracle? Maybe even Cleric with a heavy focus on Channeling Energy. Paladin could also work. With this kind of stat array your options are a lot more varied.
I'm wondering if any of you have experience with similar rolling systems, or how some of you guys would work with this?
Yes, I've had experience with that sort of system.
I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.
I think it's very important for this reason that players need to be informed beforehand and wholeheartedly agree to it. A lot of players have a preferred playstyle and I realize that this system simply wouldn't work out for that type of player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's very important for this reason that players need to be informed beforehand and wholeheartedly agree to it. A lot of players have a preferred playstyle and I realize that this system simply wouldn't work out for that type of player.
I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.
So true. Some players just want to play 1 or 2 types of characters and will be extremely unhappy if forced out of their comfort zone.
I would be ok with the "In order" part, but less so with the "rolling dice" part. I seriously dislike rolling dice for stats because you are likely to end up with Hercules(near demigod stats) and his mortal companions(average stats), with a sidekick/comic relief(barely acceptable stats) character.We use cards instead of dice. Take 12 or 18 cards whose total values add up to the power level you want. Divide them evenly to the stats and add them up. Everyone has the same power level but distributed randomly across their stats.
We generally allow players to swap 2 stats to allow for the "I only play 1 type of character" player. We use;
1 x2
2 x2
3 x3
4 x3
5 x4
6 x4 = 71 (11.8 per stat).
This was the normal method in earlier edition of D&D. It was mostly abounded for good reason. The biggest problem is that it leads to large imbalances between the players. In 1st edition AD&D it was not so bad because stats were not that important. Your race and class was more important than stats. In pathfinder stats are very important especially at low levels.
Consider an elven wizard with a 18 STR vs a fighter with a 10 STR. At first level the elf will be better at using a long sword than the fighter. Around 4th to 5th level the fighter will start to pull ahead of the wizard.
Totally random stats sound like fun, but the big problem is that you don’t get to play the type of character you want. Some games even went as far as rolling for the equivalent of your class. If your players are good with this type of game then great, but be prepared for some buyer’s remorse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way of the wicked system is similar to this but gives as bit more freedom and doesn't need rerolls. You might consider it, or something similar like I did.
Roll 2d4+7 four times and place in order. Now assign a 16 and an 8 a wherever you want. Some control, but also a fair bit of randomness. The best of both worlds.
So true. Some players just want to play 1 or 2 types of characters and will be extremely unhappy if forced out of their comfort zone.
I would be ok with the "In order" part, but less so with the "rolling dice" part. I seriously dislike rolling dice for stats because you are likely to end up with Hercules(near demigod stats) and his mortal companions(average stats), with a sidekick/comic relief(barely acceptable stats) character.
We use cards instead of dice. Take 12 or 18 cards whose total values add up to the power level you want. Divide them evenly to the stats and add them up. Everyone has the same power level but distributed randomly across their stats.
We generally allow players to swap 2 stats to allow for the "I only play 1 type of character" player. We use;
1 x2
2 x2
3 x3
4 x3
5 x4
6 x4 = 71 (11.8 per stat).
Wait, I didn't quite get how this card system works exactly? I get that it's sort of a point buy with a random factor but could you explain in more detail exactly how these cards look and how many the player can pick?
EDIT: Okay I get how many cards there are and what they look like, but I don't get how exactly the rest of this system works.
EDIT2: Okay, wait, I think I figured it out now. It's blindly distributed over the stats until every card is used up, that's why there is 12 or 18. Haha, sometimes I can be a bit dense.
That would make the minimum point buy about 16, right? (16, 12, 12, 12, 10, 10) You're actually a pretty generous DM.
Thanks for the link -- only looked at anydice.com very briefly, but I looked at the page you linked that gave examples from using anydice.com, and anydice.com looks very useful.
{. . .}
Another favorite of our group is for one-off dungeon crawls: get out the CRB, roll for race, class, alignment, etc. Then roll 4d6 in order for the stats. Leads to some hilarious characters, and if you die, just roll again the same way. One of my favorites was a Charisma 6, Dexterity 25 sorcerer who actually made it further through Crypt of the Everflame than any of the other characters.
Not a philosophical objection, but how was that Sorcerer supposed to do anything? With a Charisma of 6 (and not Sage or Empyreal), all class abilities are completely crippled.
* * * * * * * *
Now if you want a REALLY unfriendly system, try the system that Basic D&D used: roll 3d6 for each stat in order, with no rearrangements. Only adjustment was a set of unfavorable tradeoffs for each class -- I don't remember all of them (and Basic book is under a pile of stuff), but for example, if you were a Fighter you could trade in 2 Intelligence for 1 more Strength, or 3 Wisdom for 1 more Strength. AD&D kept the 3d6 without rearrangement but dropped the trade-in option, and added the option for Fighters who got 18 Strength to roll percentile dice for extra Strength, and the Strength table gained a set of Strength levels between 18 and 19 that corresponded to these percentile rolls. It also added age adjustment of ability scores, and the decreases in Strength lopped off half of any percentile roll for Middle Age or bypassed the percentile Strength and dropped your base roll for any older age category. Later, alternate methods such as 4d6 drop lowest began to be offered grudgingly.
Oh, and of course, AD&D 1.x/2.x also had both upper and lower ability score limits for certain races (as well as adjustments), and lower ability score limits for all classes (each one that didn't have an elevated lower limit as mentioned following had 1 explicit dump stat) plus some elevated lower limits for some classes (for instance, Druid, Monk, and Paladin) -- if you didn't meet the ability score prerequisites, you couldn't play the character. And all races other than Human had hard limits on class levels for all classes other than Thief, except that Half-Orc hard-limited Thief but didn't hard-limit Assassin (which had its own class-specified hard limit), and Half-Elf didn't hard-limit Druid (which also had its own class-specified hard limit), and later on female Drow didn't hard-limit Cleric (the only non-Human race/class combination that didn't have either a race-based hard limit or a class-based hard limit).
Edit: I remember that a lot of people started coming up with their own alternative systems for rolling up stats (like some of the alternate ones offered in later AD&D times but with more of a chance to meet the prerequisites for playing the character you wanted), and a few (including me) came up with an early point buy system (mine was sort of equivalent to Pathfinder 18 point buy, but I hadn't yet figured out the diminishing returns part).
I kid, some people actually enjoy that. As long as the players are all told beforehand and agree to it, there's no problem. Just not my cup of tea. Like some were saying above me, you actually end up with generous pointbuy values, so that's cool.
|
I think it's very important for this reason that players need to be informed beforehand and wholeheartedly agree to it. A lot of players have a preferred playstyle and I realize that this system simply wouldn't work out for that type of player.
I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.
Even if you don't have a preferred playstyle, you might have still had a new class that you were itching to try out. However, you got your high stats in the wrong places, and now you're stuck playing the same thing you did last time.
I would also politely decline.
Hmm
This can be fun, if all the players agree beforehand that they think it's a fun idea too.
If Hmm and BretI were players in the campaign, you shouldn't do it, simple as that.
However, there's nothing bad or wrong about using this method of generate ability scores - it's just not for everyone.
Personally, I use 4d6b3, two sets, and you can scrap both sets in exchange for a third set if you dislike both.
It has produced good enough rolls, without the 'everyone has an 18 always' syndrome that point buy always ends up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Even if you don't have a preferred playstyle, you might have still had a new class that you were itching to try out. However, you got your high stats in the wrong places, and now you're stuck playing the same thing you did last time.
I would also politely decline.
Hmm
It doesn't help that having fixed stats can force you into playing a weak character that has to fill a very narrow set of roles. Mediocre Con and Dex pretty much means you are playing a support caster, and any strength you have as well as non-primary mental attributes are more or less wasted. For example, a score of 16 Str, 10 Dex, 8 Con, 15 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha means you are either playing a limp wristed anemic wizard who will die to a stiff breeze, or a divine caster who is still very fragile but not a total liability. Even something like a low Wisdom score on a ability score set that otherwise works well with a martial character is painful. Playing alongside Fred the Fighter, with their 16s in all physical scores but a 5 in wisdom isn't exactly "fun" when Enchantments start getting thrown around.
I guess my overall point is that there's more to it than just "the player gets exactly what they want because they are entitled to it" vs "LOL-random-is-fun". There are randomization methods where everyone is going to be on fairly even footing and where players are going to have a decent amount of flexibility with regards to their mechanical choices, even if they don't get exactly what they want. There are also randomization methods where some players (but only some) only have two or three choices and all of them suck while others will be able to pick between half of the classes in the game and all of them will play out well. The first is something I wouldn't mind making a character under, since I know that both I and everyone else will end up with a character they will enjoy. The second is something I might tolerate for a one shot, but I would understand that the entire thing might be ruined for me or another player from the get-go because of a couple of terrible rolls. An entire campaign of playing a fragile, mechanically dull character or watching another player look depressed as their PC fails yet again at a relatively easy task? Yeah, thanks but no thanks. For what it's worth, the OP's method isn't the worst method by far that I have seen (the fact that 60% of my rolls were tossed out is a testament to that), but I would still expect at least one player to come to the table with a character that they won't enjoy that much. Things might be different if the campaign is an outlier, like a silly goofball thing where the PCs aren't in any significant danger, or a total meatgrinder where you don't bother naming your PCs for the first couple of levels (in other words, when pathetic failure is totally acceptable and just part of the experience), but for the typical campaign where characters are expected to live but are also expected to succeed at seriousle challenges having a character who will hamper at lest one of those isn't likely to be particularly enjoyable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is of any help to you, I've figured out that the ideal formula for rolling ability scores is simply 1d12+6. This leads to a perfectly equal chance to roll any score from 7 to 18 (rolling combinations of multiple dice may be kind of fun, but it does seem to favor some results over others).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running a campaign for about a month now that is 4d6b3 in order, and we're having a really good time. It can create some really interesting character concepts because of this generation method that you wouldn't see otherwise (17 Int). For our fighter (whose player wanted to play a melee fighter regardless of his 12 str), it changed the way he goes about the game. Instead of standing still making full attacks, he spends a good half of combats looking for ways to interact with the environment to help out: dropping chandeliers, shoving creatures into toilets, forming chokepoints. This method can also make some prestige classes (like mystic theruge or eldritch knight, or heck, monks more viable.
As folks have said above, it works if the players are into it. If everyone is for it but one or two players are against, you could always offer them a different generation method. After all my players rolled their stats, I offered to let them place them in the order they want: no one has taken the offer yet.
It also helps with this method if you lean towards being lenient with what the characters can do. For example, if our 12 strength fighter wants to climb a chain, I let him do it without rolling climb--this prevents some of the problem of someone with lower scores failing at the most basic tasks. During more difficult activities, like climbing a chain in a windstorm while having boulders dropped on you, I still ask for a check.
|
We recently rolled PCs for a Giantslayer campaign. One player objected to rolling stats - he prefers to have the freedom to assign the points however he wants.
So the DM came up with two solutions, first we rolled 5d4 down the line (with a small bennie of the chance to reroll any double 1 that came up) and secondly he allowed me to offer to completely swop my results with his, if necessary.
That kinda worked, a;though there were alot of 12s and 13s in the party.
In preparation I worked out what I would like to play depending on which stat came out highest and that helped me decide what to do with things like a high Con (half-orc scarred witch) for instance. Then I didn't mind what the results were, I could get excited about any set.
Personally, I think it helps if you come from a pre-point buy era so that you aren't wedded to not rolling.
Cheers
The way of the wicked system is similar to this but gives as bit more freedom and doesn't need rerolls. You might consider it, or something similar like I did.
Roll 2d4+7 four times and place in order. Now assign a 16 and an 8 a wherever you want. Some control, but also a fair bit of randomness. The best of both worlds.
My favorite is something similar: put a 16, 15, 14 wherever you want, and then roll 3d6 in order for the other three. Makes sure you can build the character you want, but puts some fun randomness in the other three stats.
Another favorite of our group is for one-off dungeon crawls: get out the CRB, roll for race, class, alignment, etc. Then roll 4d6 in order for the stats. Leads to some hilarious characters, and if you die, just roll again the same way. One of my favorites was a Charisma 6, Dexterity 25 sorcerer who actually made it further through Crypt of the Everflame than any of the other characters.
I really like the idea of combining rolling with set stats.
My girlfriend's character generation system for the current campaign was to give us the option of 15 point buy or rolling 3d6 for each stat in order with 12 point buy "on top". You couldn't lower scores to gain more points, but when increasing them you only had to pay the cost difference between your rolled and purchased stat. For instance, if you rolled 14 on the 3d6 you could buy it up to 15 for 2 points, 16 for 5 points, etc. Everybody tried rolling, and there were some pretty funny results including an Alchemist who rolled 3 Con with the option to buy more for 2 points per increase up to 8. I guess how "funny" that is depends on the group, but I rolled alright, so at least the joke wasn't on me.
The same group's previous campaign with a different DM had "in order" stat rolling with a method more similar to what the OP described and no sort of point buy to normalize things. As it turned out most of us rolled ridiculously high, but the "in order" nature of the rolls really did affect some of the class choices. For instance, one guy got 18 Int and Wis and decided it must be the right time to play a Mystic Theurge. In the current campaign I'd been planning on a Cleric who creates undead, but a 12 Wisdom and 6 Charisma compared to a 16 Str and 14 Con helped convince me to try out the Feral Gnasher Barbarian, and that has been a lot of fun.
I think the OP should go for it. I complain sometimes when I have to roll instead of use point buy, but it is fun for a lot of folks and really does lead to some unexpected PCs.
Perhaps another way to address the needs of those players who really want to play a particular class (or a particular subset of the classes) and who are worried they won't roll suitable stats, would be to run a communal character generation system and allow players to swap entire arrays once generated.
There isn't really a good way of avoiding the potential power imbalances, if you're set on rolling dice. Being a fan of rolling stats implies being happy to play the sidekick to a bunch of heroes, imo.
Great input everyone! Thank you!
Rolling does lead to degrees of imbalance, even with a bunch of safety measures.
I intended to keep the power level as equal as possible for each party member, but to have a random stat array where people are challenged to be creative with their given stat array.
I think Valandil Ancalime's and Shiroi's suggestions appeal to me most in that regard.
I have a DM that gives us a 16,16,14,14,12,10 stat array. Assign how you want. If you wanted to make characters with good power but a need to build the class around the stats, you could instead assign these same stats randomly.
Assign each stat in order by rolling a percentile for each stat. Highest two percentile rolls get the 16s, next two highest get the 14s, 5th down gets the 12, and last place gets a 10.
This method gives everyone the same, above average, stat array but forces the interesting character choices of a random distribution of your stats. Other stat blocks could be created and assigned in similar fashion based on the power level of your preference.
Sounds great for my purposes, but one thing worries me here, and that is MAD versus SAD... because the given stat array seems to favor MAD-characters.
...
Sounds great for my purposes, but one thing worries me here, and that is MAD versus SAD... because the given stat array seems to favor MAD-characters.
SAD characters are usually fullcasters. Biasing against them isn't exactly a terrible idea.
I did something for a new set of players in terms of rolling stats. We rolled 4d6b3 any order. The range had to be 9 so an 18 and a 9 basically with a minimum total modifier of +9 across all scores. Resulted in characters that generally have an 18 a 9 and most of the rest of the rolls were 14 or 15 with a 16 or 17 thrown in. Typical set {18,16,14,13,13,9} i think. It resulted in powerful characters for a group of first timers, but they all had a weakness
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The most fair way to roll stats I've seen is to have each player roll a set of stats(by whatever method of rolling you prefer), then each player gets to choose any one of the sets for their character(duplicates allowed) - so everyone gets a chance at the same numbers. Usually you'll get about 2 best options, one good for SAD characters and another better for MAD. Rarely someone will roll a stupendous array that everyone will pick, which is about the biggest risk in this system.
Fun stats?
20 point buy, nothing below 8.
You said fun right? I have fun when I can build the character I want and be effective.
I play something really similar really.
4d6 , you drop the worst one.
If you think your result was poor, you can request to roll all of it again to the DM.
Has worked for a very long time for a table i play in.
Another idea im going to try soon is:
Everyone rolls the 4d6 , drop the worse and give the DM the results , then the DM decide which rolls everyone can select to use and each can pick whatever one they want.
This could balance out the system , since people would be able to select the same stats.
Now personally , i would never play by rolling it in order like you are doing this time , since i only play certain classes which can easilly fit what i play without much extra cost (and if i cant play one of those i will make the worse PC ever , but i will fit it into what i want my PCs to have dont matter is it cant fight to save its own life) , but if your players agreed to it , then go for it.
I remember this one time playing "Call of Cthulhu" RPG and there we rolled the stats in order , just like you said there OP , so a friend of mine decided he wanted to play a priest , thing is he actually score a 18 (on just a 3d6 roll no drops) on apparence , which was hilarious cause he was the hottest guy alive , who kept trying to avoid women :P.
SAD characters are usually fullcasters. Biasing against them isn't exactly a terrible idea....
Sounds great for my purposes, but one thing worries me here, and that is MAD versus SAD... because the given stat array seems to favor MAD-characters.
In my experience biasing against any player will end up baldly eventually , but maybe you have had different luck.
The most fair way to roll stats I've seen is to have each player roll a set of stats(by whatever method of rolling you prefer), then each player gets to choose any one of the sets for their character(duplicates allowed) - so everyone gets a chance at the same numbers. Usually you'll get about 2 best options, one good for SAD characters and another better for MAD. Rarely someone will roll a stupendous array that everyone will pick, which is about the biggest risk in this system.
If I were into rolled stats, I think this system would be the best choice. In my last DD3.5 campaign, I rolled the most annoying stats and made him a fighter (STR 13, IIRC) and then had the good/bad luck to be the only one of us who never died even once in 5 years of gaming. Go figure.
One of my pals had 2 18s and a 17. It was frustrating for me, but OTOH he was so super-awesome that he ran so deep into trouble that he got raised some 7 times or more.
Lately, since switching to PF, we've stuck with point buy (25 pts, stats between 17 and 8, pre-racial) and that works well for us. 25 pts gives you enough that you can have a good primary and still spend a bit on other favorite stats.
Fun stats?
20 point buy, nothing below 8.
You said fun right? I have fun when I can build the character I want and be effective.
I guess I should have written a more specific thread title.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think this sort of character gen works best for limited term games.
I once played in a 2nd AD&D campaign where we rolled 3d6, arrange as you like, and those were your stats. It really wasn't fun to be the single person whose highest stat was 14. It was even less fun when another player rolled an array with nothing lower than a 15 and two 18s. It was super less fun when you consider that we were expected to play this game long term. And for more less fun topping on the less fun cake, I really wanted to play a druid and didn't even qualify for that class with those stats (the GM wound up letting me play a druid with those horrid stats after I threatened to bow out).
In another game (with a point buy system), someone created a 3 CHA character. That character was not fun for the rest of the group.
My long winded point is that characters with "interesting" stats can be fun for brief periods of time, I'd be very hesitant about making people play them for long periods of time.
Fun stats?
20 point buy, nothing below 8.
You said fun right? I have fun when I can build the character I want and be effective.
I guess I should have written a more specific thread title.
Fun stats?
20 point buy, nothing below 8.
You said fun right? I have fun when I can build the character I want and be effective.
I guess I should have written a more specific thread title.
I sense snarkiness here. So let me respond in a different fashion.
Crazy weird rolled stats are almost never actually fun for at least some members of the party. There's always at least 1 person who got screwed, or at least 1 person who stands out head and shoulders above everyone else. Unless you're going to allow everyone to choose between any of the stat sets rolled chances are someone will be unhappy.
Now, that person might not leave or say anything. Perhaps because this the only gaming group they have or the only game going on. Personally, when I've had GMs try this in the past I've told them I wont be gaming with them for that campaign. I'd rather not play then play in a game I know I wont have fun in.
So you asked what would be "fun " methods of rolling stats with the implication of not using the standard method. So my response was basically, "Don't, that is usually not fun for at least 1 person". Point buy may not be interesting, but at least everyone is on equal footing.
You wont something different, give your players a 20 point and tell them no buying above a 16 and no selling below an 8. You see more builds that are usually MAD. This encourages people to build characters they've never built before and do things that aren't necessarily the super optimized SAD builds.
I honestly think this sort of character gen works best for limited term games.
I once played in a 2nd AD&D campaign where we rolled 3d6, arrange as you like, and those were your stats. It really wasn't fun to be the single person whose highest stat was 14. It was even less fun when another player rolled an array with nothing lower than a 15 and two 18s. It was super less fun when you consider that we were expected to play this game long term. And for more less fun topping on the less fun cake, I really wanted to play a druid and didn't even qualify for that class with those stats (the GM wound up letting me play a druid with those horrid stats after I threatened to bow out).
In another game (with a point buy system), someone created a 3 CHA character. That character was not fun for the rest of the group.
My long winded point is that characters with "interesting" stats can be fun for brief periods of time, I'd be very hesitant about making people play them for long periods of time.
I am largely in agreement. I once played a gnome bard because my best score was a 13 charisma. I had four scores with negative modifiers. Lots of fun being completely incompetent at everything but providing a plus one.
Still I like some randomness. Controlled randomness though hence as mix of rolled and assigned. I don't need the same array as everyone else, but I'd like to be good at one thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My groups enjoy rolling stats over point-buy about 80% of the time, but it often results in characters of widely disparate power (especially in the early game). Our old method of rolling from 1E D&D that is still favored is much like the OP's:
Roll 4d6, drop the lowest. Your first roll is STR, second is DEX, etc. Roll a 7th time and you can swap that in for any other roll. Then you can swap one more time between any 2 abilities.
There tend to be a lot of different ability score builds that you would not normally see, including strong wizards, dexterous clerics, and charismatic fighters, and part of the fun is making that work for your character. Also, in our most recent game, after rolling up we instituted a quasi-point-buy method wherein you determine what value you would have if you had built your rolls in point-buy. If you have less than 20, you get the difference to add to your stats.
Let's see...
4d6 Str 7
4d6 Dex 12
4d6 Con 10
4d6 Int 12
4d6 Wis 17
4d6 Cha 10High score 17, total bonus +3. This is a legal character.
I can definitely make a dwarf caster cleric out of this. Heavy armor all the way, otherwise standing back and casting debuffs on the enemy.
Actually, that wouldn't be a legal character using the initial system I posted, because it has the prerequisite that the average modifier needs to be at least +1. (Not the total modifier) This character would have an average modifier of 3/6 = +0.5
Instead of an 'average modifier of at least +1' I could also have said 'a total modifier of at least +6'Regardless, I think this system, like others have pointed out, is wonky simply because it's rolled and has a potential for Hercules versus sidekick characters in the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.
Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:
*edited*
There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.
Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:
[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6
With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.
A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.
To be a sweet GM, let's say they
A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.
I think that is both random and fair.
17
10
10
11
11
9I guess i become a Big Stupid Fighter, there is not much i can do with that ;)
Not to worry, that stat array wouldn't have been legal by far. Needed to have a total modifier of +6. See my previous reply to InVinoVeritas. Anyway forget it because my current system is much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.
Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:
*edited*
There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:
[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.
A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.To be a sweet GM, let's say they
A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.I think that is both random and fair.
With this system, I just got the following three stat arrays in a row:
A)
Str 9
Dex 11
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 15
With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.
B)
First, I got two illegal stat arrays that were too spread out and had no 16 or higher.
Str 8
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 15
With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.
C)
Str 15
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 6
Wis 13
Cha 17
With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.
My two cents: Actually quite a lot of viable options with every stat array, thanks to the ability to swap a pair around, and being able to choose race. If I would add the ability to let players also swap complete stat arrays with each other, that should probably mitigate any remaining issues and make everyone happy I think. Perhaps none of these stat arrays are optimal for regular builds, but then again that's also sort of the point to trigger the creativity.
{. . .}
In my experience biasing against any player will end up baldly eventually , but maybe you have had different luck.SAD characters are usually fullcasters. Biasing against them isn't exactly a terrible idea....
Sounds great for my purposes, but one thing worries me here, and that is MAD versus SAD... because the given stat array seems to favor MAD-characters.
Players end up baldly? You know, if players are tearing their hair out over this, it might be time to make an adjustment . . . .
* * * * * * * *
More musings on old times: In one AD&D 1.5 (AD&D 1st Edition + the various supplements) game I was in during college, things were really crazy. Party size was something like 13, and I rolled up an Elven Thief. In those days, you rolled for Hit Points including 1st level, and I got a 1 on the d6 (Thieves had d6 back and less than 3/4 BAB in those days, and I had no Constitution modifier), AND 0 hit points or less meant you were Dead -- no unconsciousness possible except when using the optional nonlethal combat rules. Then the DM decided to use the optional system for rolling for social rank. Rolled 00 -- Royalty! Then I spent the rest of the campaign (it only lasted a couple of sessions) worrying that I would die if somebody sneezed on me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, even in case they agree, they might not be totally aware of the consequences. It's an interesting idea for sure, but I'd add a safety mechanism: If the player is really unhappy with his character, he is free to replace him once, keeping his XP and wealth (with different items).