So my players just fell in love with oldschool ability generation...


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The group I'm with in has done both, albeit in different games.

In a Spycraft campaign, since it went with point-buy, that's what we used. Its rules let me get away with 14 14 14 12 12 12 for the main soldier type.

We went to Pathfinder, and we rolled 4d6 drop 1. The dice smiled on me there; 16 14 16 13 10 8 for a barbarian. (They went south when we rolled starting wealth, 60gp.)

I wonder ... how much of a premium does Pathfinder put on ability scores? Would my Soldier type manage as a general combat type? (Sadly, for magic, I know even if I put the 14s in mental stats it wouldn't work in the long run.)


thejeff wrote:
strayshift wrote:

My games I run we use 4d6 take best 3 in a 'grid' system, this tends to give a good set of stats with some control but not optimised (in the current game I run the lowest charisma in the party is 14, the last point buy game I played in I had the highest charisma at 10).

The people I play with are experienced and the grid system helps martials and MAD characters like Monks, but also means that most caster don't tend to start with a 20 casting stat. Also if someone has say a 28 point buy equivalent compared to a 23 point one we don't get hung up about it, one will probably play a more MAD class, one a more SAD class. Players still have choices.

I'd like to point that despite that being one of my big problems with rolling, I don't complain about a 28 PBE vs a 23 PBE. I complain when it's more like 35 vs 15. Doesn't always happen, but I've seen some serious extremes.

Or as in the quick set of 6 stats below from 28 to 7
** spoiler omitted **

Except for the fact that we use 4d6, take best 3, you will find the grid system here:

http://castlesandcooks.com/2013/05/09/dd-home-brew-character-creation-the-r andom-grid-method/

Because you generate 9 sets of stats with limited choices of where you put them, the possibility of 2-3 low stats is greatly diminished. In addition you will often have stas that are half decent in areas outwith your class, say 14 charisma for a monk. The characters are good but not cookie-cutter optimised.


I will definitely try out the random grid method... it is a little more permissive than straight in order while keeping it feeling home grown.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

In my experience, it just gave the players three extra rolls to get high stats.


It just feels too gimmicky for me.


I think one limitation on rolling for stats is the need for a GM to watch over the results. Otherwise it's tempting to just say you got that 17 15 14 12 10 11 set. Which is completely possible, and could have been rolled legit ... after, say, an 8 4 10 9 4 12 set.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
In my experience, it just gave the players three extra rolls to get high stats.

Sad... you are right.

After testing with the method I found it can be used in two ways;
1- It can be used to build toward a concept. By picking the six scores to aim for a concept you can usually get a semi-decent score set to build from.
2- It can be used to create 3 throw away scores giving you the highest 6 of 9. This is extremely limiting on where those stats fall, but it seems you can always just take the best 6 and then work with that as a starting set.
Every player seems to opt for #2 when using grid... So grid has failed and won't be used again.

It seems like #1 was the intended use of the method. But clearly #2 is how it's being used.


For my next 5e campaign I'm going with 4d6 drop lowest, assigned as desired. If you don't like your stats, you can take the standard array instead.

I've used that before - feels like it solves the "I rolled terribly" problem while still allowing for some randomness.


Don't know if I read it somewhere or came up with it on my own, but I have been thinking about adding "if three of the final ability scores are below 10, or if the sum of all ability scores is below 65, you may roll a new array" to 3E's organic method. Should prevent players from being stuck with really s&+%ty rolls, while preserving the randomness.


Antariuk wrote:
Don't know if I read it somewhere or came up with it on my own, but I have been thinking about adding "if three of the final ability scores are below 10, or if the sum of all ability scores is below 65, you may roll a new array" to 3E's organic method. Should prevent players from being stuck with really s$!%ty rolls, while preserving the randomness.

That's one of the approaches I dislike. I much prefer something like Tormsskull's "If you don't like the result, use the standard array", than giving out another chance at high stats if you do badly enough.

The guy with 3 nines gets a reroll, the one with 2 sevens and a 10 is stuck.


thejeff wrote:


The guy with 3 nines gets a reroll, the one with 2 sevens and a 10 is stuck.

Yeah, so? His other three scores must sum up 41, which means he must have 14, 14, 13, or he may reroll as well. 7, 7, 10, 13, 14, 14 might not be stellar, but it's far from unplayable. I'd play that in a heartbeat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Antariuk wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The guy with 3 nines gets a reroll, the one with 2 sevens and a 10 is stuck.
Yeah, so? His other three scores must sum up 41, which means he must have 14, 14, 13, or he may reroll as well. 7, 7, 10, 13, 14, 14 might not be stellar, but it's far from unplayable. I'd play that in a heartbeat.

But by similar logic 9,9,9,13,14,14 isn't unplayable either, right? Why should he get a reroll when I don't. Or for that matter 9,9,9,15,15,16?

If the objective is preventing you from being stuck with really s%!@ty rolls, giving a fixed baseline array is a better approach than giving rerolls. If the objective is having another chance at a really good roll, then it obviously isn't.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Our houserules can allow a reroll if you net modifier is a negative number. People don't always take that out, though-but I would not use this option with a group I didn't know well.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
In my experience, it just gave the players three extra rolls to get high stats.

I can see that but we have far fewer casters starting with 18 (20) stats and the Martial/MAD classes get a bit more love too e.g. higher Int for more skill points.


I vaguely remember a rule in 3.0 that if the total modifiers of the 6 rolled stats didn't add up to at least +1 then it was considered legally unplayable. Then again, I've had activities in my life since I last looked at 3.0, so I could just be remembering a dream sequence.

My groups have never enjoyed standard arrays or point buys. Our groups also tend towards higher power level campaigns, both for the PCs and the NPC. We've used, under various DMs:

1) 4d6, reroll all 1s and the first 2 (for each roll), drop lowest
2) 4d6, drop lowest, reroll lowest stat
3) 5d6, drop two lowest
4) 2d6+6 (Currently being used)
5) 3d6 in order
6) 1d20+2 in order

If there's an extreme discrepancy then it gets addressed without animosity. Usually the extreme discrepancy is named Dave and dice simply do not like him. Spectacular card player, just sucks with dice. It's a disability he's learned to live with. In a 2e game, several years ago, he managed to have a 9th level wizard with only 13 HP.


Vanykrye wrote:
I vaguely remember a rule in 3.0 that if the total modifiers of the 6 rolled stats didn't add up to at least +1 then it was considered legally unplayable. Then again, I've had activities in my life since I last looked at 3.0, so I could just be remembering a dream sequence.

I remember that rule. There was also a second part, where you could junk it if you didn't get a single score above 13, I think.

Vanykrye wrote:

My groups have never enjoyed standard arrays or point buys. Our groups also tend towards higher power level campaigns, both for the PCs and the NPC. We've used, under various DMs:

1) 4d6, reroll all 1s and the first 2 (for each roll), drop lowest
2) 4d6, drop lowest, reroll lowest stat
3) 5d6, drop two lowest
4) 2d6+6 (Currently being used)
5) 3d6 in order
6) 1d20+2 in order

If there's an extreme discrepancy then it gets addressed without animosity. Usually the extreme discrepancy is named Dave and dice simply do not like him. Spectacular card player, just sucks with dice. It's a disability he's learned to live with. In a 2e game, several years ago, he managed to have a 9th level wizard with only 13 HP.

I'd be afraid of d20 in any sense rolling for stats. That thing's just too swingy. Even with the +2 to avoid a 1, I've had some nasty Dave-like experiences with that dodecahedron to the point where I'm the poster girl for weird dice in any groups I'm in.

I like the 2d6+6 for a 'high-power' campaign. Lowest 8, average 13. And I always want to have 'any order' for dice. Helps avoid scenarios where the highest Wis in a group is 9, for example.

Liberty's Edge

Qaianna wrote:

The group I'm with in has done both, albeit in different games.

In a Spycraft campaign, since it went with point-buy, that's what we used. Its rules let me get away with 14 14 14 12 12 12 for the main soldier type.

We went to Pathfinder, and we rolled 4d6 drop 1. The dice smiled on me there; 16 14 16 13 10 8 for a barbarian. (They went south when we rolled starting wealth, 60gp.)

I wonder ... how much of a premium does Pathfinder put on ability scores? Would my Soldier type manage as a general combat type? (Sadly, for magic, I know even if I put the 14s in mental stats it wouldn't work in the long run.)

Spycraft, and it's descendents, only have point buy for stat generation, and three 14s and three 12s before Origin is a pretty standard array since straight 13s is the 'average' PC.

As far as Pathfinder goes, you'll start struggling fairly quick with that array, if I remember the math right.


Qaianna wrote:
Vanykrye wrote:
I vaguely remember a rule in 3.0 that if the total modifiers of the 6 rolled stats didn't add up to at least +1 then it was considered legally unplayable. Then again, I've had activities in my life since I last looked at 3.0, so I could just be remembering a dream sequence.

I remember that rule. There was also a second part, where you could junk it if you didn't get a single score above 13, I think.

.
.
.
I'd be afraid of d20 in any sense rolling for stats. That thing's just too swingy. Even with the +2 to avoid a 1, I've had some nasty Dave-like experiences with that dodecahedron to the point where I'm the poster girl for weird dice in any groups I'm in.

I like the 2d6+6 for a 'high-power' campaign. Lowest 8, average 13. And I always want to have 'any order' for dice. Helps avoid scenarios where the highest Wis in a group is 9, for example.

2d6+6 in any order is our current default. The couple of times we used 1d20+2 in order had another caveat that helped considerably: just about any creature was open for play, so racial adjustments allowed for just about anything to work. It was several years ago, level adjustment was a thing, and we started around level 20. The DM at the time (me) was experimenting with the Epic Level Handbook and converting older material (like Greyhawk Ruins, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, etc) to 3.0 and adjusted accordingly for the ELH shenanigans.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a group which favored random rolls at first, due to a very strong "purist" and RP-first mentality we had in the group. They disliked pointbuy as they saw it as encouraging munchkin-ism. Gradually though, they grew to dislike randomly rolled stats as with the way they'd roll we'd too often have to reroll else they'd have a grossly overpowered or underpowered character, and party stats varied too wildly to allow for reasonable scaling of difficulty. It just stopped feeling random with all the rerolls, it felt like we were faking it.

Personally I prefer a random distribution of pointbuy or randomly rolled for stat arrays. That way there's still a sense of randomness while still allowing for ease of balance. I'd even suggest rolling percentile to determine whether it'll be 15 points, 20 points, or 25 points for the group as a whole.

That said, 2d6+6 doesn't sound bad for low powered campaigns. But for any long term campaigns, I still feel strongly that discretionary rerolls are still necessary. For short stuff as both a player and GM I'd be okay with having less than ideal stats (or overpowered stats), since I'm only stuck with the character for a short time. But for full adventure paths or homebrew campaigns... I am loathe to the idea of committing to or forcing players to commit to the will of the dice for something as impacting and long term as ability scores.


hasteroth wrote:

I had a group which favored random rolls at first, due to a very strong "purist" and RP-first mentality we had in the group. They disliked pointbuy as they saw it as encouraging munchkin-ism. Gradually though, they grew to dislike randomly rolled stats as with the way they'd roll we'd too often have to reroll else they'd have a grossly overpowered or underpowered character, and party stats varied too wildly to allow for reasonable scaling of difficulty. It just stopped feeling random with all the rerolls, it felt like we were faking it.

Personally I prefer a random distribution of pointbuy or randomly rolled for stat arrays. That way there's still a sense of randomness while still allowing for ease of balance. I'd even suggest rolling percentile to determine whether it'll be 15 points, 20 points, or 25 points for the group as a whole.

That said, 2d6+6 doesn't sound bad for low powered campaigns. But for any long term campaigns, I still feel strongly that discretionary rerolls are still necessary. For short stuff as both a player and GM I'd be okay with having less than ideal stats (or overpowered stats), since I'm only stuck with the character for a short time. But for full adventure paths or homebrew campaigns... I am loathe to the idea of committing to or forcing players to commit to the will of the dice for something as impacting and long term as ability scores.

Since it sounds like you have the same issues with point buy & rolling that I have, I'll suggest again my preferred solution: Have everyone roll a set of stats. Let everyone use any of those sets.

You get some randomness. You get good balance between players.

You can use a lower average rolling method than you would normally, since some of the rolls will be higher.


hasteroth wrote:
I had a group which favored random rolls at first, due to a very strong "purist" and RP-first mentality we had in the group. They disliked pointbuy as they saw it as encouraging munchkin-ism. Gradually though, they grew to dislike randomly rolled stats as with the way they'd roll we'd too often have to reroll else they'd have a grossly overpowered or underpowered character, and party stats varied too wildly to allow for reasonable scaling of difficulty. It just stopped feeling random with all the rerolls, it felt like we were faking it.

I am always surprised when I hear stories like this. This is how this reads to me:


  • Group decides to roll for stats.
  • Some people roll high, some roll low.
  • People that roll low don't like their stats, and so are allowed to roll again.
  • People complain that the rolling method isn't good.

While every group should pick whatever stat generation method that works best for them, it continues to shock me that people don't point a finger at the attitude of a player that agrees to roll for stats but then complains when they roll low.

In my experience, this attitude will cause problems even if you don't roll for stats. It crops up in the form of a player complaining that they don't have an opportunity to shine, or complaining that magical items aren't evenly distributed, or complaining when the exact item they want to purchase isn't available, etc.

It seems often people take the position that it isn't worth it to try to address the root of the problem, or separate the player from the group, and instead try to develop workarounds. I'm just not sure why.

Liberty's Edge

Tormsskull wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
I had a group which favored random rolls at first, due to a very strong "purist" and RP-first mentality we had in the group. They disliked pointbuy as they saw it as encouraging munchkin-ism. Gradually though, they grew to dislike randomly rolled stats as with the way they'd roll we'd too often have to reroll else they'd have a grossly overpowered or underpowered character, and party stats varied too wildly to allow for reasonable scaling of difficulty. It just stopped feeling random with all the rerolls, it felt like we were faking it.

I am always surprised when I hear stories like this. This is how this reads to me:


  • Group decides to roll for stats.
  • Some people roll high, some roll low.
  • People that roll low don't like their stats, and so are allowed to roll again.
  • People complain that the rolling method isn't good.

While every group should pick whatever stat generation method that works best for them, it continues to shock me that people don't point a finger at the attitude of a player that agrees to roll for stats but then complains when they roll low.

In my experience, this attitude will cause problems even if you don't roll for stats. It crops up in the form of a player complaining that they don't have an opportunity to shine, or complaining that magical items aren't evenly distributed, or complaining when the exact item they want to purchase isn't available, etc.

It seems often people take the position that it isn't worth it to try to address the root of the problem, or separate the player from the group, and instead try to develop workarounds. I'm just not sure why.

Ya see I'd agree, except they were players with little or no experience with the game. So they didn't have enough to figure out which stat generation method liked or not, and only really had hearsay to go off of.

To address the second part of your post, that didn't happen with this group at all, so it isn't as universal as you seem to think. You mis-attribute the selfish version of balance concerns to this group, where a player is only concerned when they get the short end of the stick and couldn't care less when it affects someone else. As a group they distributed their magic items and loot evenly, they never complained (more than was reasonable) if something wasn't available for purchase.

My point is, not all players are munchkins who only care about themselves.


Tormsskull wrote:


it continues to shock me that people don't point a finger at the attitude of a player that agrees to roll for stats but then complains when they roll low.

Also, why?

Just because someone agrees, doesn't necessarily mean hat was the choice they wanted. Most people will agree with the majority just to get the ball rolling.

And even avid agreement doesn't mean you can't be dissatisfied.

If you all vote to play a new game, and the new game sucks, making a complaint that the game sucks makes sense, even if you agreed to play it.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:
I always enjoyed the Traveler system... where, in addition to skills/abilities, you roll for your character's background. Including the possibility that you have already died. :]

Not quite, CBD. The original TRAVELLER char gen is a "press your luck" mechanic, like BlackJack. You build your character's skills by advancing her through a career. You can stop at any time and take the character, or you can decide to give her another 4 years of history, with more skills, more initial money and perks, but also with commensurate risks. As you get more and more experienced, the risks grow greater; you start suffering age penalties to your physical attributes. And yes, you stand an increasing risk of a mishap.

In early versions of the game, this meant you "went bust" and your character was killed. By The TRAVELLER Book edition, it meant that you were forced out of your service two years into your tour of duty.


hasteroth wrote:
Ya see I'd agree, except they were players with little or no experience with the game. So they didn't have enough to figure out which stat generation method liked or not, and only really had hearsay to go off of.

I'm not sure exactly what this means. Someone suggested rolling, the group said sounds fun, they rolled, then they said they didn't like it?

You say these players had little or no experience - where did the idea of "my scores aren't as high as Bob's, I want a re-roll" come from?

Hope you don't think I'm interrogating you, I am geniuinely curious.

hasteroth wrote:

You mis-attribute the selfish version of balance concerns to this group, where a player is only concerned when they get the short end of the stick and couldn't care less when it affects someone else.

Your group of players with little or no experience had balance concerns with players having different stats?

If the group thought different stats = balance concern, why did they decide to roll in the first place?

hasteroth wrote:
My point is, not all players are munchkins who only care about themselves.

I agree, and furthermore I never used the word "munchkin", which is generally associated with cheating. I'm not suggesting these type of actions indicate a cheater. I'm suggesting they indicate a complainer.

Scarab Sages

Tormsskull wrote:

I love rolling in order - it feels more authentic to me for characters and avoids cookie-cutter concepts.

That being said, I've seen people fiercely argue against rolling stats, and rolling in order they rank up there with criminal behavior.

Sounds like you have a good group of players.

Aye, but if you're rolling in order it should be Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. People only rearranged them for second edition :P.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:


hasteroth wrote:

You mis-attribute the selfish version of balance concerns to this group, where a player is only concerned when they get the short end of the stick and couldn't care less when it affects someone else.

Your group of players with little or no experience had balance concerns with players having different stats?

If the group thought different stats = balance concern, why did they decide to roll in the first place?

Something I've seen happen on many occasions in the various RPGs I've played and run is people going with an idea that looks good on the surface, only to discover later that it brings up balance concerns or other issues. Rolled stats may seem great until you have significant disparity from character to character. At that point, it might seem more reasonable to switch to point buy or some other method to reduce the chances of such disparity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
hasteroth wrote:

You mis-attribute the selfish version of balance concerns to this group, where a player is only concerned when they get the short end of the stick and couldn't care less when it affects someone else.

Your group of players with little or no experience had balance concerns with players having different stats?

If the group thought different stats = balance concern, why did they decide to roll in the first place?

Because they were new and not theory-crafters? Because they didn't expect the disparities to be as large as they were? I've been in groups with 1 PC with an 18 and multiple 16s & 17s and another with a high of 13. Balance concerns get real obvious, real fast - even to new players.

In my experience, with long-time players, we grew up with rolled stats as the only option. The complaints started back then, when it was a little silly to say "You chose to roll, why are you complaining." Even now, you may want to play in a particular campaign with a particular group and be willing to put up with rolling if you have to, but not be happy about it.

There are things I like about rolling, but disparity between characters isn't one of them. Which is why I suggested the pool method above.

I do agree that a lot of rolling methods that purport just to avoid the really bad rolls are actually aimed at another chance of a good roll, which doesn't seem optimal to me. There are ways to fix that: Rather than "reroll ones", "Treat ones as twos". Rather than reroll if your stats are below some arbitrary boundary give a stat array you can switch to after you see your roll. Lower bounds rather than another chance.


In all the groups I play in we roll for stats normally 4D6 drop the lowest in order .
It works really well for us as none of us mind what class of character we play although obviously people have favourites I just think it give the characters a more organic feel to them


I like to use a pool method. You have 24d6s that you can assign to each of the abilities. Each ability must have a minimum of 3d6. Lowest rolls are dropped and numbers cannot be exchanged between abilities after you roll. That way you can pick a class that you would like to play before you roll your stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
If someone rolls an 18 I feel like they earned it, if someone buys an 18 it cheapens the value of an 18 IMO.

You have it backwards actually. A rolled 18 is free, you got it simply by luck. An 18 from PB, on the other hand, actually costs you points you could have put into other stats, or in some cases you even have to take away from other stats to afford the 18. Now that's what you call "earned".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. A purchased 18 is usually way too much for anyone to buy anyway. You have to sacrifice A LOT for an 18 with Point Buy.

Not so with rolling.


Sundakan wrote:

Exactly. A purchased 18 is usually way too much for anyone to buy anyway. You have to sacrifice A LOT for an 18 with Point Buy.

Not so with rolling.

A rolled 18 is rare you may have to wait through several characters to get one. A point buy 18 just needs a stat or two bought down and can happen on every character if the player wants it.


Aranna wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

Exactly. A purchased 18 is usually way too much for anyone to buy anyway. You have to sacrifice A LOT for an 18 with Point Buy.

Not so with rolling.

A rolled 18 is rare you may have to wait through several characters to get one. A point buy 18 just needs a stat or two bought down and can happen on every character if the player wants it.

That has little to do with whether it is "earned" or not. Regardless of how often the option is available, in every case a purchased 18 requires more effort to get and costs the player more to attain.

Would you say someone who has won the lottery has "earned" their money more than someone who has worked 60 hours a week for the past ten years to get it?


The earning is in the wait. Or perhaps to word it differently. The 18 is respected more on a rolled character because of the rarity where on the point buy character it is simply a choice and not worthy of any extra respect. And before you go on about "earning" the 18, yes it costs more but that cost is always at the expense of stats you have no special love for and intended to ignore during play anyway. So you haven't really "earned" it have you? Really bad analogy there BTW. It is more like a genetically engineered baby (point buy) compared to a natural born one (rolled stats). Neither one worked for anything. One was just engineered for a specific role the other grew into a role he was naturally gifted toward.


I agree, buying an 18 is not worthy of respect (mostly because it's a really bad choice 90% of the time). But of the two, it is definitely the more "earned" since a sacrifice (whether you belittle it or not) was required to get it.

Neither is rolling it. It's a quirk of the dice. You got lucky.

Why is it worthy of respect? How has it been "earned"?

Perhaps if you'd read the post above mine, you would have realized that was the exact conversation we were having.

Dark Archive

Antariuk wrote:
Don't know if I read it somewhere or came up with it on my own, but I have been thinking about adding "if three of the final ability scores are below 10, or if the sum of all ability scores is below 65, you may roll a new array" to 3E's organic method. Should prevent players from being stuck with really s++~ty rolls, while preserving the randomness.

Because rolling 3d6 was pretty the gold standard in 1st edition AD&D, and because I was legendary for my crappy dice rolling, we had a house rule that I got to reroll if I didn't qualify for *any* character class. (You needed a 9+ Str to be a Fighter, 9+ Intelligence to be a Magic-User, 9+ Wisdom to be a Cleric or 9+ Dexterity to be a Thief, or higher stats to be any of the other classes, like Druid, Illusionist, Paladin, Ranger or Monk. I failed to get a 9 in any of those four stats *twice* before we decided to go with the 'mulligan' house rule.)

Later we went to 4d6, drop the lowest *and* roll seven times, and drop the lowest of those seven rolls for your six attributes.

I prefer point-buy. Twenty is good. Fifteen is a fun sort of 'hardmode.' Twenty five is also fun, if everyone has it, as the PCs become sort of like Doc Savage or James Bond; strong, smart, fast, tough *and* sexy! (And may be deserving of some more epic bad-guys!)


Well the respect comes from the expectations. "Wow! You got an 18! This character is going to ROCK!" People expect more from you now. You get to carry a heavier role in the coming game. In a gamist group strategy will focus on how well you utilize that big boost. In a simulationist group people will look up to you in that area and expect much of you.


Aranna wrote:
Well the respect comes from the expectations. "Wow! You got an 18! This character is going to ROCK!" People expect more from you now. You get to carry a heavier role in the coming game. In a gamist group strategy will focus on how well you utilize that big boost. In a simulationist group people will look up to you in that area and expect much of you.

Unless everyone else rolled no stat above 12 (...well, I suppose that's a definite possibility with this stat generation method), I'm not sure why that extra +1-2 to one thing will make you the envy of your peers and all around admirable person.

It's nice to have, sure, but it seems really silly to place that kind of value on a dice roll. Do you guys go nuts every time somebody rolls a 15+ on a d20?


We do kind of go nuts a little when we roll a natural 20 which is similar.


Aranna wrote:

The 18 is respected more on a rolled character

Not universally

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / So my players just fell in love with oldschool ability generation... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion