Remember when people used to get bad stats every once in a while?
Me neither.
Yea, it was stupid and made assholes feel like their characters were superior for role playing. Good riddance.
Yeah, that sucked. Some party members receiving an arbitrary disadvantage at character generation was a legacy mechanic from a time when game design hadn't progressed as far as it had now. We can't blame the games of the past, they didn't know any better, but we can move forward and get rid of such things wherever we can.
My biggest complaint about rolling is this. My current GMs let us reroll if we have less than a certain equivalent point buyy. It feels like it might make more sense to just use point buy or maybe roll to see how good of a point buy eacvh player gets
Stop rolling stats with D8s
>>47026388
I roll 3d6 for stats and encourage my players to do the same. Never had an issue with it and I find it WAY more fun than pointbuy.
>DM insists we roll for stats
>I dislike it, but it's his call
>get really high rolls
>"Good job, those are your stats."
>"Can I change them?"
>"No, those are what you rolled."
>"I mean, can I drop one of them below 10? I was thinking my character is clumsy, so low Dex."
>"No, you have to use what you rolled. Everyone else does too."
>"Well can I switch this 17 for an 8 or something? I'd like my character to have some kind of flaw represented in his stats."
>"No, everyone else is using what they rolled."
>"Can I re-roll then?"
>"No."
Yes, this happened.
I liked the old RPGA Ravenloft campaign's way of handling it; 72 points total, 16 max, only 10s and 11s (before racial bonuses) can be duplicates.
I used that at the end of 2e and never really looked back; I used an array in 4e and I'm still debating array vs pb in my head for 5e.
>>47026528
See? You had to deal with stupid assholes like this.
Having dump stats exist sucks, having a single stat to base everything you ever do sucks. Being an elderly wizard with penalties to your strength doesn't matter! With 4 strength, the clothes on your back, a wizard book, and a single bag of holding is beyond what he can comfortably carry, but a single item, muleback cords, fixes it so that. A monk can use his dex for initiative and dodging, add his wisdom so he's strong in mind and body, and pump his strength to hit hard as fuck, right? Except the way everything is balanced anyone with a good spread should put it into something else.
>>47026388
Remember when stat modifiers were uncommon and a big deal?
>>47026777
Yeah, now we have to deal with assholes like>>47026531
>>47026528
4d6, drop the lowest dice.
>>47026388
I have had to play a character with a cumulative stat mod of -1 they were so flawed it was not fun, highest stat was a 15, and there was no conceivable way this person would function as an adventurer ended up with a bearly sentient druid that had a charisma of three.the character was fun but playing it was not because it was bad at basically everything.
i think it's silly to argue about one thing being innately better than another. it's like arguing about salt being a better or worse ingredient than sugar. absolutely depends on what you're trying to do.
there are situations where rolling for stats is really stupid. there are also situations where there's a reason to do it and it's perfectly fine.
more than once i got dropped into a game with no time to come up with a character concept and drew a blank on what i wanted to play. instead of wasting X hours hemming and hawing about how to spend points i roll 3d6 down the line and go "oh, look at that, looks like i'm a charismatic, clumsy strongman, what class does that suggest?" and you go from there.
also it can be a learning experience. force yourself to play someone whose strengths and weaknesses you never would have picked on your own. enjoy the challenge. in the right group, with the right GM, this is totally valid. in a lot of other groups you might feel like it's shit and the rest of the party might feel like your turns are a waste of time. choose appropriately.
Lots of good points on both sides ITT.
I'd add that the only really bad idea is to be too rigidly in favor of one system or another. Try more things and try tweaking them until you, and your group, are happy with the results.
My bro was once stuck playing a Ranger that didn't have a stat over 13 because the DM, though running 3.5, was super rigid about using oldschool style 3d6 stat rolls with no re-rolls. Players began to resent my bro getting them into jams by trying to get something to kill him so he could re-roll.
I've also been in a game where my point-buy character was looked on as a burden and a waste of time because I didn't drop any stats below 10. They all had super min-maxed characters that didn't RP their stats at all so they saw nothing wrong with playing a brawler with single digit mental stats and still RPing him as a wise cracking problem-solver. When the mechanics needed mental stats, they'd just turn to the player with the opposite issue to fix it.
Players should have fun. System/edition preferences/wars aside, using your preferred rules to the point of infringing on the fun is the only truly bad idea.
>>47026865
3d3 exploding.
Your stats are 1d20
>>47026459
>>47026454
>>47026431
Really? I quite enjoyed having characters that had a few lower than average stats; it forces you to think up new ways to approach a problem if said problem relied heavily on those stats, rather than just being passably okay at everything.
>>47026865
Just used that format in the campaign I'm in right now. There's only one stat I don't have a +4 minimum in.
>>47027479
Sometimes I enjoy the randomness.
It really depends on the type of game I'm playing. Ultimately it's the group chemistry that's important.
Point buy is fine, but promotes useless rollplaying. Which is for twats.
>>47026865
I've used this method since 1st edition
>>47027538
>things that never happened.jpg
>>47027538
Seriously? I tend to get at least one -1 and 0, and I've never +4'ed.
>>47026388
yeah thats how it was when I played. We'd all roll in front of each other and create characters together. If someone got a set of stats with nothing over 12 or something, we'd always allow a reroll. But it was normal to have like an 8 or a 10 in there. Seemed like thats how our characters became more defined and memorable.
I remember I had a female thief with really low charisma for the Ravenloft module, and (iirc) its follow up module. My friend was DM and he was like 'she's either 100 lbs overweight, or has insane acne'. I was like well shit, I guess Im playing a fat girl thief. Well I also rolled successfully for Psionics, and I believe I could either stun people or put them to sleep, or perhaps damage them, I forget. (this was ~1990)
But this character would get harassed and disrespected all day by npc's, and even a (pre-that guy) guy in our group from time to time. I would use the Psionic powers in retaliation, often undetected from hiding or whatever. Just being fat and greasy, but in leather. I remember I kept picturing jabba the hut when she would have to interact with someone.
But yeah, sometimes bad stats ended up working out in the long run.
>>47027669
>>47027677Alright it's actually +3 min
Capped some of the rolls for proofs, others were 10 and 18.
>>47026388
The reason I dislike bloated pointbuy is because in older editions, the game was more balanced around having middling stats being the ACTUAL default.
Nowadays a warrior with 18 strength really isn't really getting a '+4' bonus, they're just 'at the expected power level.'
Now it's more like 18 is +0 and 10 is -4. When every warrior has 18 strength, that +4 might as well be part of the class and stats tossed into the trash.
Is the general decrease in the assumption of disposable characters a good thing?
>>47027840
Not good or bad, just a change tin expectation as RPG's evolved to have more focus on story than the orginal squad-based tactical wargaming simulators
>roll poorly
>try to overcome poor stats with creativity
>GM "Sure, roll [insert skill or stat]"
Fuck
In some systems stats aren't that important, but in fucking DnD is basically the base for everything ever
>>47026388
>DM 5e game
>4d6 drop lowest for stats
>two players roll excellent
>one rolls mediocre
>the other rolls two 17s and two 8s, so he's pseudo minmaxed
>mediocre stats guy complains
>all of his stats are between 12-14
>he says he's useless and can't do anything
>3 sessions in and he hasn't made an attack roll above 5 because his d20 rolls have been shit
>he insists he'can't do anything because his stats are so bad
>actively avoids danger because he's convinced his character is handicapped
He won't listen to the idea that he's just rolling like shit and that his stats are fine.
Should I kill his character and end this madness?
In the current game my total modifier is a +4, then the rest of players have a +10, +12 and +15, I'm literally useless, and if GM doesn't throw me a bone I'm going to retire the character
>>47026388
Consider rolling for stats, then letting people fiddle with the numbers
>>47027840
It sort of depends on the game that you want to run. Generally, people seem to want to throw out a character and start over if they don't like how things are going, but otherwise they don't want to just get rid of a character. There's not as much fun in a character dying, or as much expectation of that happening. It feels more like a loss of accumulated progress than something that's probably going to happen.
That said, then you tend to get into a mindset of 'the DM won't throw us up against something that could actually kill us!' And that's a bad thing. Now a GM has to stay in a limited window where there is a challenge, but not too much - deaths would make the players mad, but near misses are fun and exciting.
>>47027840
Bad.
I like the idea, but I'm a slow writer and photocopying is expensive.
As long as my character is good in what he's supposed to be good and isn't outclassed by others I'm good
>>47026388
Random stats are cool, but I'm not a big fan of somebody being able to roll much higher than somebody else.
>>47026531
So you played as an unnaturally competent warrior who longed to secretly be, what they call in some circles, a "dojikko?"
>>47027479
then lower them ass hat. no ones stopping you with a point buy.
>>47028548
>That said, then you tend to get into a mindset of 'the DM won't throw us up against something that could actually kill us!' And that's a bad thing.
It's a very easy issue to resolve with just some clear communication. It's only really an issue with certain players, and communicating with them directly that yes, they will very likely die if they choose a particularly suicidal line of action, is usually more than enough to get them to reconsider what they're about to do. After that, it becomes a question of whether or not you were bluffing, and no one can really blame you if you were not.
>>47030892
>>random method
>>everyone will get a +2 minimum
This is why random rolling is only done by retards
>>47031287
>everyone will get a +2 minimum
While that's technically true, everybody will also get a +2 maximum, and your phrasing makes it sound like you don't really understand the thing you're criticizing. What's your complaint?
>>47031287
No, that method actually works well for what it does. It gives you a random but playable result that might make you play a kind of character you would not otherwise play.
Random character generation should mean "You get a random character" out of a bunch of ones that are mostly decent. It shouldn't mean "You have a random chance for a playable character".
And if you happen to believe the latter, then anon, I'm sorry, but a retard is you.
>>47031378
>>durrr
its very possible to roll entirely negative stat arrays. the average roll of 3d6+1 is 11.5. That's not impressive, and very easy to fucking tank some rolls and end up with 0 or less. it's also very possible to produce some even more powerful players compared to others.
Random rolls are bullshit, there are no gaurantees or +2 minimums. thats the whole fucking point of random you stupid cuck.
Arrays and point buy give you actual minimums. Rolling is russian roulette
>>47028390
He'll just end up vilified in the end and focus hard on trying to go for super high bonuses and bitch when he rolls anything less.
Rolling was a mistake.
>>47027397
Str: 14
Dex: 4
Con: 7
Int: 6
Wis: 5
Cha: 5
>>47031409
>>durr eyem a big shitfaced retarded covered in guano.
a +2 minimum does not exist in a 3d6+1 array fagtron. it doesn't matter if you want shit characters, you don't get to lie and say that every roll, statblock total or individual statistic, gives you at least a +2
>>47027397
I just did this to try it out, my stats are 6 6 5 6 6 9. Amazing method.
>>47031436
I don't understand. Are you just lashing out at random? because you seem to be criticizing dice rolling and then criticizing that system for not being like dice rolling.
Have my players do an array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8
Good at something, bad at something was my idea. Players have been pretty okay with it so far, though o have a party full of fighters so it is a bit samey
>>47031540
That's me. When I was eight.
>>47031899
So I have become the little girl?
>>47026512
This
>>47026528
2d6+6
>>47031653
32 PTbuy total, pretty based, would actually let you play a mad class. you may consider letting them have 3 16s as an option though.
>>47027397
holy shit
Guess I'm playing a fucking Rock Golem or something.
>>47031462
>>47031540
>>47032133
Alright, this is now a party of three, I personally look forward to seeing how things play out.
>>47026388
We still play 3d6 down-the-line.
It's just more fun for our group, and that's all that there is to it.
I do think other players who have come to our group were basically playing D&D with training wheels.
It's a much more fun game when it's not "roll to see how much I won by."
>>47031219
Point buy is for chickenshit faggots who don't want to face the glorious wonders of the dice gods.
>>47032200
The last time I faced the glorious wonders of the dice gods, about three sessions later everyone, including the GM, went 'wait why are your stats so shitty, here use these stats instead'
>>47032225
Then you had a bad group or you just suck ass at roleplaying.
Tried out a dice pool stat generation once to immense hilarity.
You get 24d6
You must place at least three in each stat.
Allocate where you want the other 6d6's.
Ironman roll.
Had a kinku fighter named Warbeak with a 24 str, 30 dex, 7 con, 9 int, 4 wis, and 16 cha.
I could move and hit like a kroot, but had a severe case of glass jaw (dem hollow bird bones mayn) and lacked any kind of common sense or discretion. Made a DC30 Escape artist check to squeeze through an arrow slit at lvl 1 (with assistance from the Rouge kicking me through it) but later promptly fucked the party when some guards interoggated us when we tried to enter a city in search of the smarmy bard BBEG.
>"What business do you have within our walls?"
"We here to kill fappadandy!"
Also the shiny tiarra that Warbeak found did not help with concealment but I refused to take it off as "Warbeak pretty bird."
tl;dr random stats can make for hilarious characters.
>>47032251
>30 dex
I don't know what edition you play, but it's fucking terrible.
>>47032245
>just suck ass at roleplaying
I am having trouble figuring out what the hell this part is supposed to mean.
As far as I can tell, either I was the one person in the group that hadn't rolled good, or there had been an unspoken 'reroll until you get a set you like', because the rolls I'd had fit into the system's "this is good enough you don't get a free reroll" bracket. Perhaps if this hadn't been literal years ago, I could remember the details better, but I'm fairly certain that someone was wondering why my modifiers were meh during a combat, then everyone turned out to be surprised that I had kept the stat rolls I'd gotten.
>>47032275
Did you not read how stats were generated? It was intended to get extreme variance. This was not a stone cold super serious campaign.
>>47032188
damn i love my class choice and ability to perform any action whatsoever being crippled on chargen while another player rolls incredibly and dominates every encounter. you god damn fucking moron. you stupid bitch. i fucking hate you.
I don't mind it in gameplay terms, but in fluff terms it's pretty wacky. 10 being average and 18 being ABSOLUTE PEAK OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT doesn't make much sense when most characters will have one really high stat and everything else is around 14, maybe with a 10 or two.
>>47032563
>Sits down to play D&D
>Tells group what class and race he wants to play
>"Ok, now let's figure out attributes!"
You're doing it backwards.
I am glad that you hate me and groups like mine. It'll keep you away.
There are plenty of story-focused, narrative RPGs.
D&D has never, ever been one of them. You are playing a hack & slash, dungeon crawler, and starting it out by cheating.
It's lame. It just spoils the whole thing.
Play a game, instead of just cheating at it. You might find out it's fun.
>>47032690
i have, you stupid fucking faggot. i have played, with an idiot like you, and it was awful because the only way to turn the worthless statblock id been handed into anything approaching a character was to game the system. unless youre making a character youre fine with losing in the first session you play them or outright intending to, being chained to a useless lump that cant do anything is not fun at all. how is picking stats cheating in any sense, its a system that prevents cheating by putting players on a genuinely even starting playing field. you are incredibly stupid.
>>47026388
I sure do! I run B/X
>>47028390
Even if his rolls were average he wouldn't be doing anything.
What of it?
>>47032690
>>47032690
>>47032831
TG complaints board, have you considered playing a roleplayin game that isn't D&D, or roll playing?
>>47026531
>I'd like my character to have some kind of flaw represented in his stats
Why? I keep seeing this from time to time. Why would you want to have a low stat to represent a flaw in a game like D&D?
Did you know that in 5e you have a dedicated space in you character sheet named Flaw and you actually get rewarded for roleplaying it?
>>47031540
Hey, that's an averagePrimarchstatline
>>47026388
>muh 2nd edition
Stats didn't matter as much then. 9-12 was no modifier at all, and your tohit was mostly based on level anyway. Your strength score didn't really make a difference unless it was like an 18/00.
>players should get bad stats
I think each player should get one or two stats below 10.so we don't have to imagine the entire party as ubermensch.
>people should roll for stats always
Yeah, then you find one guy with 18/17/16 and another guy with 14/12/8, and you wind up with people doing stupid shit to try and balance them out again. Most players don't actually want the disparity that comes with random stat generation.
>I need low stats to have flaws
That's because you didn't make a sufficiently deep or fun character. If you had written a PC who was enjoyable to play, he'd wind up with flaws that aren't reliant on ability scores being low. You'll know what these look like if you read enough of the source material that fantasy RPGs are based on.
>>47032188
>You know, I've never tried playing a social character. I want to be a bard!
>rolls 11 charisma
>I think paladins are pretty cool, I'd like to try that out!
>9 strength
>Wizards are badass. I want-
>10 int
based on true stories.
D&D is very stats-focused but pure combat is only one way out of many to do it. Roleplay is still possible, and it sucks when you don't get to make the character that you wanted without sucking at it due to random chance.
>>47033079
Nobody cares.
>>47028390
We're using this method in an Iron heroes game at our shop.
I enjoy my 4 int armiger.
>>47026388
Yes but, doesn't it make creating a story before rolling stats awkward when it contradicts what you've written for them?
Ex: Orc Barbarian who has a back story that marks him someone who survived fighting as an arena combatant has rolled extremely low STR + CON.
Ex 2: Bard who was considered a fairly good entertainer seeks adventure. Except they have low Charisma.
Ex 3. Old wizard who has studied magic most of his live ends up with High STR and Low int
I mean it is not the end of the world and I suppose all it would take is "a wizard cursed me" or some kind of injury to explain away some of those discrepancies.
>>47034386
>Orc Barbarian who has a back story that marks him someone who survived fighting as an arena combatant has rolled extremely low STR + CON.
All that arena torture has devastated his body.
>Bard who was considered a fairly good entertainer seeks adventure. Except they have low Charisma.
Training over natural talent.
>Old wizard who has studied magic most of his live ends up with High STR and Low int
Shits fucked yo.
>>47026531
>I wanted my character to be clumsy but got cockblocked by my dm
A. you're a fajita
B. You could play a character who drops things intentionally, because of his lack of confidence. I know guys who are tight shit until they realize how difficult is what they're doing, then they spazz out.
There's no stat for personality. Charisma only coutns so far.
>>47034409
ask your dm nicely to switch your strength and iq
muscle wizard
play. a fucking. fighter. you ametuer
>>47034386
I think rolling for stats requires a different mindset.
Either don't go into it with a specific character in mind, or bring a shitton of micro-concepts that can be modified on the fly to the wildly different stats.
I only do stat rolls when I'm running a meat-grinder, so having a long (or even well-thought out) backstory is practically a detriment.
>>47027479
It really depends on the game for me. Unless I'm running a one shot or a game that is super lethal and has a revolving door of PCs, I want baseline competency for my players.
Having a low stat could be fun to roleplay, but I prefer people to play what they want, not what they get (with some exceptions). And with dice rolls there is a chance you are just straight up worse than someone else. Why would the party travel with a fighter with only one stat in the double digits when they already have a fighter with only one stat
In the single digits. I think that's unfair to all the players.
But there are times where I want to run or play in a game where I have almost no control over what I am or what my stats are, just throw some dice and look at some charts to see what the hell I am. I think WFRP is perfect for this.
>>47027397
I actually like this.
>exploding 3d3: 14, 11, 11, 14, 14, 12
Wow, look. A normal character.
If anybody wants to try rolling this and doesn't already know about anydice, go here and click on the "roller" button:
>http://anydice.com/program/843f
>>47035509
>exploding 3d3: 11, 27, 5, 11, 4, 4
>>47028401
Dude, just swap our your gimpy flesh with cybernetics.
>>47026531
>play anima
>roll 4 10s a 4 and the rest 7+
Dm banned me from changing the lowest to a 9 as rules say.
This is why point buy is siperior
>>47026388
People got bad stats all the time.
The moment you get good stats, you stop deliberately trying to get your characters killed.
>>47026531
>Yes, this happened
Code for "Things that never happened."
>>47035509
How about imploding 2d3?
> http://anydice.com/program/8440
>>47026388
Last time a rolled, my 5e bard had no stat lower than 14 except strength, at 13. He has higher stats than most of the party.
>>47026454
Kek.
See what you did there gov.
>>47032831
You sound like a smarmy faggot. Please consider sudoku
>>47026388
Remember when stats didn't determine whether you were going to be successful or not because 8-15 gave no bonuses or penalties?
Fuck off.
has anyone ever played with a dm that made you roll then use the stats in the order you rolled them (first roll is strength etc)?
rolling for stats is fucking dumb and if a DM makes you do it instead of just letting you use point buy or standard array you're probably in for a bad time.
I don't want a character with all stats above 12 and I don't want a character with all stats below 10, both of which are entirely possible
>>47036420
I dont want a cookie cutter character with absolute defined optimal selections of stats, feats, spells, and whatever other garbage is lying around. Give me some degree of unpredictability that I have to adapt my character's build to any day.
>>47026388
Oh, you mean the time when people would blatantly cheat and start off with at least 3 18s and no stat under 12? Yeah, what a shitty time, am I right?
Man, am I glad that I don't play with shitty people like >>47026528
>>47026388
I've taken up forcing all of my players to roll 3d6 down the line, allowing them a one-time swap of two ability scores.
The trick is that I allow them to reroll the entire array as many times as they like. I get varied characters, and everyone gets the stats that they're happy with. It's 100% win-win with none of the downsides.
I know people don't like rolled stats and the inherent unfairness in them, but how else do you keep people from being too average in all areas but the importance?
I mean its a nice idea to want balance by using point buy, but how actually fun is it to have characters with stats of 10, 10, 10, 15 in an important stat and that's it? At least with rolled stats you can force someone to get a shit number they have to use, forcing them to actually roleplay someone that is weak in some way. The dumb hotheaded warrior, the fragile but intelligent Wizard, the limping but faithful cleric, and so on. Isn't this more interesting and engaging then min-maxed ubermen with no real flaws?
I like the idea of combining a bit of both worlds; roll for random stats but allow you to arrange them as desired- that way its still random, but you have a little more control and can better fit your character around the needs of the party.
>>47036589
At that point, why not just let them use point-buy? It ensures everyone is on the same power level so nobody feels useless, and you don't waste time endlessly rerolling stats.
>>47036625
Because the downside of point buy is most people don't wind up with varied or interesting stats.
Also, its fun to roll.
ITT: The Stormwind Fallacy in action.
I make my players roll for stats.
If you get shit rolls I will allow one re-roll.
If you get all great stats your second roll and you want to switch one out with one of the shit rolls, go ahead.
If you roll a 5 the second time, you have a "fun character."
I have seen players that had the worst stats kick the most ass because they played their characters to their strengths.
I have seen players with the best stats sit in the back or eat shit because at the end of the day, a 1 is a 1 and a 20 is a 20.
All that matters is if God Wills It.
remeber when people used to play games that started them out with intentionally low stats and no money, and didnt end with one or more of the pcs challenging god and winning?
>>47036681
>The Stormwind Fallacy
Fuck off.
>>47036642
Stats aren't interesting in the first place.
>>47036699
Kill yourself.
>>47036699
agreed what a knobhead
>>47036681
Okay, can we just cut the bullshit here for a second?
The Stormwind fallacy was invented by a munchiken trying to desperately defend his powergaming ways. People who actually optimize their characters, and I mean that in the sense of actually being a powergaming asshat who plans their character build from level 1 to 20 with 10 different multiclasses start to finish just simply don't roleplay. There is never a reason for the powergamer to have such an odd juxtaposition of classes on one character, and it's built that way JUST to be an "OP build". Meanwhile, roleplayers don't care what they get for stats as long as it represents the character in their head.
The Stormwind Fallacy is just this neutral safe position trying to defend bad practices. Yeah, sure, not every single powergamer in the world is incapable of roleplay, but that's like saying "Not EVERY person who has a dick doesn't also have a vagina". Yeah, sure, that's technically true, but it's such a rare absurdity that going around and calling everyone by the "Xir" pronoun is fucking retarded. A powergaming munchiken only cares about making his build rock combat, and will never act in a realistic way that portrays any flaws or defects to their cast-iron build. 8 int? Too bad, the powergamer went to college and knows enough to mix together harmless compounds into an explosive device. 2 wisdom? That's unnacceptible because it affects saves. Good thing the powergamer dumped wisdom because he was intending to buy a Wisdom amulet from the Magic Mart. Meanwhile, the roleplayer actually knows the difference between a 9 strength and a 10 and will act it out accordingly, including the life choices made up to that point.
People who try to defend their powergaming ways by spouting "S-S-Stormwind Fallacy!" in every stat thread needs to die the fuck off right now.
>>47036826
good post
>>47036826
A noble and respectful golf clap for you, sir.
>>47036826
>>47027840
WHRPG is one of the few "expendable character roll for everything" systems I enjoy. Basically because you start as a rat catcher John Q or similar scum.
>>47036699
You pretentious dickhead
>>47036602
This is called an array, anon. It's a pregenerated set of ability scores, generally ranging from about 16 to 8, with a variety of scores in between. You put the high score in what you're good at and the low score in what you aren't.
>>47036826
Have you ever considered that there are people out there who will accuse you of powergaming or making a special snowflake just because you have a character concept in mind and would rather play that concept than have the dice fuck you over? Or even just because you're playing a largely combat-focused system like 4th edition? That's when people spout Stormwind Fallacy, and that's what people have been saying in this thread - that you should be rolling randomly and it doesn't matter if the dice don't represent who your character was.
>>47036826
>rare absurdity
Except it's not as one-in-a-million as you make it sound like. Plenty people who optimize put thought into roleplay.
And neither is optimization just about combat monsters. I've seen things like skill optimization and speed optimization.
What's wrong with pointing out the fallacy when tards act like you can't roleplay if your character is good at things?
>>47037104
I've decided to let my PCs for the next game I play roll two arrays using the 3d6 table system.
Roll 3d6 three times, (reroll if total is less than 6), and generate the remaining 3 stats based on what you rolled for the first three.
6:18
7:17
8:16
9:15
10:14
11:13
12:12
For example if you roll a 6, 10, and 15 you generate an 18, 14, and 9.
So you end up with one array that is (6,10,15,18,14,9)
I decided to let them generate two arrays this way and pick the array they prefer. This is in case a player rolls a character that is too flat. It's pretty generous, I admit. But at least this way all players have the same base stat total and there is an element of randomness.
>>47037134
You didn't address a single point but your ass is red and it looks like it hurts. Back to your munchkin "optimization" forum you power fantasy retard.
>>47037144
t. fat greasy slob who has to "win" a cooperative roleplaying game
I'm at the point where I exclusively roll 3d6 straight down. I have dozens of ideas for characters and randomizing the stat line greatly helps me to pick one. Plus, I prefer playing weak characters.
4 exploding d4 (any roll over 18 is reduced to 18) is best
>>47037176
I'm sorry for whatever terrible experiences you've had that make you butt ruffled about people optimizing things.
>>47037170
That's because you have one point that you just repeat over and over.
>Powergamers are bad.
And I don't need to do an in-depth refutation of this point because you have basically no evidence. You list a bunch of anecdotes, and claim that 99.9% of powergamers will avoid roleplay without offering any evidence. You don't even have the decency to say "In my experience." Your post is pure opinion, and so the only response that can be given and need be given is:
No, because a lot of people will powergame or optimise their stats to suit their backstory while leaving other, less important stats to die. A Fighter who was supposed to be an enslaved arena fighter who never actually talked to people until he won his freedom might very well have 18 Strength and Constitution but 8 or less Charisma.
>>47027840
No, it's a fucking cancer.
Point buy just encouraged people to have their special snowflakes and.then heaven forbid.if they were allowed to die (except possibly in a preferred awesome and dramatic way).
You roll for you character and work with what you get. Character dies sooner or later and you roll for another one.
There's actual risk for the characters, making out the system doesn't happen and no-one is ragequiting because their snowflake stabbed a toe.
I see no reason why you can't roleplay someone who is really good at something.
It's one thing if you want to roleplay someone who is good at everything, that's bullshit. But if you do everything you can so your character has the fastest base movement speed, fucking go for it flash-man. If that's fun for you, hell yeah.
>>47031264
So you think that the only way players should be able to die is if they do something utterly suicidal?
Normal adventuring should carry no risk at all?
Fuck that shit.
>>47037262
Like everything being flung around in this thread, it really depends what kinda game you want to play.
>>47037258
Your example wouldn't make any indication on CHA but rather the fighter's lack of ranks in Diplomacy.
>>47033340
You pick a class to suit your stats retard.
>>47037298
Actually, fair enough, I can see that. Arena fighter, he might have won a very intimidating presence and he might know how to be a crowd pleaser.
Still, 8 or less Int. Or 8 or less Wis. All of these would make sense.
>>47037308
>you aren't allowed to have a character in mind before you start the game, such is the will of the dice
No fuck off
>>47036420
>waah, waah I couldn't have the exact special snowflake I wanted.
>>47037317
Honestly a SUCCESSFUL arena fighter is probably at least on par across the board. Too low Int or Wis and you won't have what it takes to earn your freedom.
Not saying all arena fighters are like this. But the difference between a star and a goon is mental as much as it is physical
>>47037335
I don't understand where this idea that 8 int is drooling retard or 8 strength is useless noodle arms came from.
-1 modifier is hardly a huge deal. An arena fighter with 10 wisdom, 8 intelligence, and 12 charisma is plenty reasonable.
>>47037353
Because if your snowflake is fucking amazing at everything he wants to do then he's useless.
I mean you can't expect people to play a character that's merely above average?
>>47037340
>see shitty, over dramatic, unreasonable greentext
Wow nice argument dude.
>>47037353
Because in every edition where an 8 is worth a -1 (as opposed to having no modifier at all), monsters are built assuming +3s are being thrown at them, so a -1 isn't -1 below expectation, it's -4 below expectation.
>>47037340
>Having a character concept in mind for something = special snowflake
>Thinking "Y'know, X class looks cool and I normally play Y class, think I'll roll an X this time around" = special snowflake
>>47037353
Note that when I started discussing this character, I said AT MOST 8. 6 or lower would make sense as well.
>>47037361
I don't think I understand what you got from my post or what point you're trying to make with yours.
A character who is great at their strong points is the opposite of useless. And a character who is just "above average" is totally fine. Nothing wrong with that.
Personally I'm annoyed by shitheads who think they're so special because they play a character with no stat higher than twelve like doing that makes them a roleplaying master.
>>47026388
How about 6d3 in order?
Does it matter how a character got their stats? Roll or Buy, should the point be how they PLAY their stats?
If a Martial dumps one or more mental stats into minus and then plays that aspect of the character as if it was higher, that smells like bullshit. But if said character plays low wis as foolhardy, or low cha as unlikable, does it matter whether the low stats were rolled or chosen?
Maybe I've just been lucky in my groups, but I'm having a hard time seeing either side as cancerous as long as the RP is solid and stat appropriate.
>>47037353
It is plenty reasonable.
But a star arena fighter would need to be a quick thinker and problem solver.
Also, don't confuse skills for stats. A caveman can have 19 Int but seem dumb do to lack of education.
Played a zombie-survival rpg with a friend a bunch of years back. It was called Infected or Infection or something like that.
>Rolled stats
>Game has stats from 1-12
>My stats in the 3-6 range
>complained to the GM, who said it'd be fine
>First encounter. PC team split in two. Two PC's face zombies (two), the other three PC's in another room trying to unlock the door, so the other two can get to safety.
>After initiative is rolled, the order is the other guy, two zombies, then me.
>Other guy shoots zombie #1, it dies.
>Other zombie, walks up to me, swings a fist at me. It hits. I die.
>GM is shocked, asks if that's right. I say that yes, I have that little health (and I point to my bad stats).
>GM says "well, you can't die here. the zombie missed."
>I try to punch zombie. Hits. It doesn't die.
>Other PC attacks zombie. Isn't allowed to shoot, because the zombie is in melee.
>Can't punch worth shit, so he misses.
>Zombie kills me again.
>GM tells me to make a new character.
We only played for an hour or so after that, I never got to introduce my other PC, since the system was such a clustefuck, and the GM so bad at explaining shit, that there were tons and tons of arguing about what had happened and so on.
Then I went back to being foreverGM.
>>47037375
Aren't systems like that geared towards the idea that even a level one character is better than the average shmuck?
I don't have anything against wanting to be in a game where you start in a more lowly position, but even if the math is geared for +3s the story expects 10~12 to be average.
rolling 3d6 is dumb because it kills player morale
rolling 4d6 encourages snowflakery and people being unable to accept a character death
point buy encourages 10 pages of dumb backstory and even more snowflakery
just use the standard array, no, you're not too good for it
>>47037421
>Aren't systems like that geared towards the idea that even a level one character is better than the average shmuck?
It is, and having higher than average stats by default is how those systems usually do so.
>I don't have anything against wanting to be in a game where you start in a more lowly position, but even if the math is geared for +3s the story expects 10~12 to be average.
Average in terms of humans, not average for PCs or enemies, which is what matters.
"Relative" power is all that actually matters, and if a Str8 character is regularly getting completely demolished in physical contests against monsters (which they will be, because monsters are built assuming 16 Strength is "average") then it doesn't matter if Strength 8 is "a little below average," because it's going to FEEL "weak as all fuck," and so that's how it's going to be presented/played.
>>47037412
Getting on a tangent now but I'm now thinking about how the different mental stats would play out for an arena fighter.
High int means evaluating an opponent and figuring out a strategy to outdo them. The high wisdom one has experience on their side. They know the tricks people pull, and would be able to anticipate a move before it happens.
>>47026388
Hey guys, I wanted to post this link in this thread so people can choose whatever dice rolling method they'd like for stats.
http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php
I like it because it breaks down the probabilities with each indicated dice rolling method so that, as a DM, you can choose as to what type of power level you want your campaign to be about while still allowing for variance. If you want to guarantee a few 15's but no 18's or no values < 6, I'd suggest 6d3.
>>47037466
Evaluating a combatant would mean common sense, experience and intuition more than calling on memory or logic, I'd assume, though I've never actually been in a fight. Therefore I'd put that under Int as well. I guess there might be a difference between sizing somebody up with a glance and working out what to do in the middle of a fight?
>>47037478
That's the impression I get. Intelligent fighter might not immediately get a read, but they're a fast learner. They'll figure out an opponent's style and personal flairs quickly, and could formulate a way to take advantage of a weak point in their technique.
Wisdom fighter would be more about generalizations. They'll see a way an opponent walks, what weapon combination they're using, and will default to what they know is good against that kind of opponent. They'll stick to tried and true maneuvers, and they'll know what kind of moves the opponent will probably try and pull as well.
There's probably still bleed between the two as well as getting the same results from different methods. But what I mostly see is intelligence being better at specific situations while wisdom having a more catch all approach that's broadly applicable.
Charisma, of course, knows how to get the crowd cheering for them and booing the opponent, and how to intimidate the opponent or fake them out. I guess that's getting more into skills, but still.
>>47037523
I'd say for a champion fighter, one who can beat all opponents rather than just being specialised, a good wisdom would make more sense.
Int dump it is!
Rolling stats is realistic, but if we already decided we play the game as a party, it stops being so.
What if I lost genetic lottery this party and am good only for peasanting? Or if we all rolled warrior stats - we wouldn't assemble party like that, we'll have to hire people from the side.
>>47037532
That makes sense to me. Talking with no actual knowledge of this kind of thing, granted, but I'd think this is a thing where experience beats out anything else.
>>47037549
That only makes sense if you are playing a random group of people. But you're not. You're a random group of adventurers. Anyone who is only for to peasantry wouldn't be a PC in the first place.
>>47026388
Yeah, it really made no sense and broke my suspension of disbelief. Why would a mediocre individual chose to be an adventurer, and why would a self-respecting adventuring party let this blue falcon tag along with them?
Adventurers are exceptional individuals... that's why they're adventurers and not peasants.
>>47037574
That's what I'm talking about. We all gathered together and decided we will be an adventuring party.
Then I roll my dice and they say I'm terrible at everything. So from roleplaying standpoint if I try to be in adventure party, they would turn me down.
>>47037574
>Anyone who is only for to peasantry wouldn't be a PC in the first place.
But that's kind of his point, isn't it? Rolling gives the full spectrum of people, including those unlikely to ever become adventurers, which is really only suitable for folks of at least modest ability.
Rolled two sixes and some middling crap for a 2E AD&D game. I'm going to 'enjoy' playing that character right up until the first combat I can't outright run away from. Then I'm going to hit -10 with a single blow and hopefully roll up something decent.
I wish I could convince the majority of our group to use point buy.
>>47037596
What if we roll with "Adventurers are exceptional individuals" and start rolling our dice to see how better we are compared to regular people?
>>47037607
Meant for >>47037584
I cook my d6s so I always roll 3 across the board at character creation. You cannot accuse me of being a power gamer.
3d6 sub 4
Roll 3d6. If the lowest is less than 4 it becomes 4.
>>47037621
>cooked his dice for 1s
found the roll-under system guy
>>47027669
>Imagining a character and then creating that character "promotes useless rollplaying"
>Rolling more dice for the sake of it, however, somehow "promotes roleplaying"
Rolled stats are the ultimate "rollplaying". A handful of dice rolls that resonate throughout the entire game. They will affect everything your character does from that point on. It's literally turning over your entire character concept to randomization tools. People who cry "rolled stats only!" are like some sort of fetishistic die worshipers, and the ones who babble that you can't roleplay unless you hand over the reigns of your character to the Almighty Cubes are the worse "rollplayers" of all, because they can't even fathom why anyone would want to roleplay a character unless it was handed to them by a set of polyhedrons.
There are better ways to randomize stats if that's what you really want, ways that don't arbitrarily dole out either crippled, boringly overpowered, or hopelessly mundane characters. But some people refuse to progress past the 80's or make any attempt to think of something new. I mean, it was good enough for Gygax!
Rolling stats is like deciding to write sci-fi, designing a planet, realizing your planet can't sustain sentient life and spending the rest of the book describing how wind is howling over lifeless rocks.
>>47037653
Inspiration is inspiration. Whether it is from predetermined concepts or what fate throws you in a dice roll, it's still your character that you play. I know this is the intertubes and we're suppose to get over excited, but this is one picky petpeeve... or one of them Trolls... where did i put that acid?
>>47037601
Too often players become obsessed with
“good” stats. These players immediately give up on a character
if he doesn’t have a majority of above-average scores.
There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he
does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless
to say, these players would never consider playing a character
with an ability score of 6 or 7.
In truth, Rath’s survivability has a lot less to do with his ability
scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up
on him, of course he won’t survive! But if you take an interest
in the character and role-play him well, then even a character
with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging,
and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of
5? Why? Maybe he’s got an ugly scar. His table manners could
be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say
the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest
to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear
him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally
clumsy or blind as a bat?
Don’t give up on a character just because he has a low
score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create
a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only
will you have fun creating that personality, but other players
and the DM will have fun reacting to him.
>>47037650
Jokes on you. I never play GURPS
Yeah, those were bad times.
>>47037724
How's the weather up on that high horse?
I rolled low-to-middling stats in a game where you perform actions using your stats. No amount of desire to roleplay him is going to keep him from getting stabbed.
>>47026388
A system that deals with bad stats pretty well is Twilight 2000 1st edition. Having bad stats usually meant that the character has spent more time in combat, which gives more points for military skills. It also gives better coolness under fire. That's for the plus of having bad stats. The negative aspect is that the character is physically less able due to be more burnt out. He also got more rads while being in the field.
>>47035851
>This is why point buy is siperior
I honestly don't like how point buy ends up with such round numbers. Might do that with some basic sort of thing like
>Highest stat can be X
>Second highest can by Y
>Lowest can be Z
>>47037724
>>47037764
This sort of shit exposes one of the biggest lies about D&D: That there is no win condition and no lose condition.
Do your characters have an objective? Yes? Do you care about your characters achieving that objective? Yes? Then you have a win condition. Do you want your character to die or fail to achieve their objective? No? Then you have a lose condition.
>>47037764
>you perform actions using your stats.
Ability checks are quite uncommon in 2E. They mostly show up if you're using NWPs.
>>47037808
We fucking are.
And even if we weren't, nearly everything else gets modifiers from stats.
>>47037805
autism: the post
The point is to have FUN you fucking retard
>>47037821
>nearly everything else gets modifiers from stats.
Not really significant ones, usually. Fore example, a 6 on Strength gives you a -1 to hit, but no damage loss.
It really sounds like your problem is that you haven't asked your DM to let you reroll. If your stats sum to less than 72, you probably should.
>>47037696
I was talking specifically about "traditional" randomization via older styles of dice rolled stats. 3d6 down the line, 4d6 drop lowest, anything that not only randomizes what a character is good or bad at, but also randomizes how effective a character is overall.
The problem with those systems is the totally arbitrary nature of how powerful a character is. There is absolutely no reason for the total stats of a character to be randomly assigned. The only possible explanation for why some people cling to those methods as the only, or at least greatest, stat distribution system is a fetishization of chance and rolling the dice. They don't just want a character with random attributes. They want to have that same rush that a gambler does playing craps who just went all in on a single throw. And then they'll say that it promotes True Roleplaying (tm) and call people who put time and effort into their character's concept "rollplayers".
If you want "inspiration", WE HAVE BETTER MECHANICS. It's trivial to think of stat distribution systems that are both random and balanced. You can randomize attributes without randomizing overall effectiveness. And no, that's not because I want my "special snowflake". As I said before, the problem with traditional rolling methods is not just that I might roll a weak character. It's that I might roll a weak character, or one who's boring to play because they are good at everything, or, as is the most likely outcome due to probability, a character who is totally unremarkable in all respects, making me wonder why I bothered.
>>47037857
After racial modifiers, the total is 65, but unless there's a rule about it, I'm not getting a reroll.
>>47026388
>Things modernized and this is terrible
>>47037874
Ugh. I meant >>47037858
>>47036826
>>47036848
>>47036895
>>47036935
>Samefagging this hard
>>47037874
>unless there's a rule about it, I'm not getting a reroll.
Your DM sounds like he's being a cock now. 72 is average for 4d6k3 (Method V). What's the full array?
You didn't actually use Method I (3d6), did you? That's alright for Basic but there's a reason 1e recommends 4d6k3 over 3d6.
>>47037857
This is a meaningless statement.
>>47037861
What I'm trying to figure out is why it bothers you so. Man, all these different tools, from random rolls to life paths to full point creation are just tools. Who cares how they're used? You have your preferred way, another person has another perferred way and a third always plays Malkavians so why even OFFER ANYTHING ELSE *twitchtwitch*
Nah, I get it, just pissed at people looking down on your preferred method and blowing off steam on the interwebs. Is cool, sorry I triggered you.
>>47037904
Just checked my notes. The full array before modifiers had a total of 70, so I guess I chose a shitty race? I'm not very familiar with the setting yet, I went with my DM's suggestion.
6, 6, 13, 15, 15, 15
modified to:
6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15
Korobokuru Wu Jen with STR 10, DEX 12, CON 13, INT 15, WIS 9, CHA 6.
Yo niggas hear me out.
Use a point buy system but no stat at max
>>47026531
Oh God. Did you play one of those body-dysmorphic crazies who wish to chop off their legs because they feel that's their real self ?
>>47037948
Totes a playable character. I see a bumbling fool wizard or maybe a deformed illusionist trying to make him/herself look normal
>>47037948
What stats are you using for Korobokuru? Oriental Adventures has them at +1 STR, +1 CON, and -2 INT.
>>47026388
Oh you mean when most of your rolls would only affect secondary statistics and if you get one or 2 stats with high deviation they were really special and, at the same time, didn't really give you that much of advantage?
>>47037857
How?
>>47037990
Not the 3rd edition stats.
>>47037968
The only useful aspects of the character are spellcasting and wilderness survival. I've had to sink all of my character points into Non-Weapon Proficiencies and take several disadvantages in order to get these up to scratch. Aside from the character points I had to spend in order to speak the common language.
Sure, the character is playable, but I'm not convinced it's going to be fun if he ends up being the butt of every joke. That just doesn't do anything for me.
>>47038097
>Not the 3rd edition stats.
OA is also a 1e supplement. The section you've posted is from 1e OA, and, if you check the 6th paragraph, has them at +1 STR, +1 CON, -2 INT.
>I've had to sink all of my character points into Non-Weapon Proficiencies and take several disadvantages in order to get these up to scratch. Aside from the character points I had to spend in order to speak the common language.
Are you guys using Skills and Powers?
>>47038097
errr right, just read that.
Anyhow! That making fun of thing seems like more of a Player level problem than a Character level problem. Reminds me of a time I rolled up a halfing ranger in a new group, not knowing that the GM hated halflings and went out of his way to make my character's life miserable.
>>47026388
In my group (5e DnD) we either use the base stats in the PHB or if you want to roll you have to do it at the table when everyone is present. It stops people from fudging their rolls and becoming OP.
>>47038114
I derped and forgot I upped his age to Venerable in order to get a decent INT, being a Wu Jen and all.
It's entirely possible that I fucked up a workable if below-average set of stats because I cannot into AD&D and Oriental Adventures.
>>47026388
>Rolling for stats
>>47028390
>actively avoids danger because he's convinced his character is handicapped
Tell him he's now roleplaying a low-self esteem person held down by his inability to believe in himself.
>>47034499
Why can't I just play what I want and not the dice determine every single aspect of my character?
Is it such a foreign concept to say "Hmm, I play martials a lot, I wonder how mages are" and not be strongarmed into playing a martial just because I rolled martial stats or vice-versa?
It's not even about being a narrative system or not, it's basically the game removing choice in how you go about playing your character and shunting you into a roll that you never wanted to play because RNG decided "fuck you, you're playing this class and you're GOING TO LIKE IT!"
I had a do that said you can rerouter stats as many times as you want you just have to provide proof but can use any means available to you. So my friend made a Stat roller I believe using simple java. It took something like 16 hours for it to complete but he came in with 5 18s and a 17.
>>47036642
Stats aren't supposed to be interesting, they're supposed to show proficiency in an area.
>>47038517
>rolling straight down
>>47036689
>Fun is random
Ok...
>>47036689
Last time I played with rolling stats I ended up rolling 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10.
I really don't see the appeal to rolling for stats.
Can anyone guess what the GM told me when he saw these stats?
>>47036826
>I can't build a character for shit, so I have to insult the ones that can
It's okay fampai, let it all out
>my character has 6 STR and 8 CON
>>47038610
"Tough luck, no rerolls"
>>47037262
>Characters you make vs. characters you build.jpg
Of course, tell me how having a character with an array or a balanced point buy is more special snowflake than the guy with three 18s and nothing less than 15 for his stats or a character who dies within three sessions because he didn't roll anything higher than a 14?
>>47038610
Roleplaying as joe average would be pretty interesting.
>>47036826
Your analogy is retarded. While not every single person in the world is a unique snowflake, humans are definitely more complex than your stupid "99% of people that do things I don't like are all the same person because I said so" view on people.
>>47028390
Tell him to stop being a bitch. No, really, call him a bitch and explain to him why he's a bitch.
This has actually worked for me. You then wait until the inevitable streak of good luck comes. He'll understand
>>47038792
I don't know why people are so unimaginative they need numbers to tell them what to roleplay. Either way I'm glad my GM has moved on to better game systems and it's not my concern anymore.
>>47027397
S 7
D 7
C 8
I 22
W 8
C 12
Hahahahahahha wizards
>>47038845
Truly imaginative people don't find randomly rolled stats an obstacle. It's just another element that can influence what kind of character you play.
Variety is the spice of life, and if you can't roll with some bad dice every now and then you're probably not the kind of guy I'd want to play with.
>>47038768
No, he let me use point buy instead. Case in point: point buy is superior to rolling by far.
>>47038792
Problem is, I don't want to play an average Joe.
>>47038909
Easy to say. One thing is being able of roleplaying something, the other is having fun doing it.
>>47038909
But what if I want to play a certain kind of character, but the stats I rolled are terrible and would not reflect what I have in mind that I would like to play?
What the fuck is the Stormwind Fallacy?
>>47039011
Google is your friend
>>47027397
(4d8 /2)+2
>>47032690
>D&D has never been a narrative RPG
Did you completely disregard the entirety of second edition?
Rolling for stats is stupid.
Because you create your char and then select the stats that represent the thing you created.
Something like, you create batman
and then decide what stats this batman char you created will have
>>47039056
9d2
>>47039011
Something bootybothered powergamers made up to explain that while they may be shitty players, somewhere, out there, the platonic ideal of the good roleplayer is really, really good at theorymancy too.
Nerds who at best had a 101 class in logic should stay from trying to play logician.
>>47035957
I kinda like this but i can't say it'd be in world about balance
>imploding d3: 17, 18, 7, 6, 16, 7
>imploding d3: 7, 10, 10, 8, 15, 10
>imploding d3: 7, 10, 10, 8, 15, 10
>imploding d3: 12, 9, 20, 8, 9, 16
>imploding d3: 11, 8, 13, 10, 7, 17
>imploding d3: 17, 18, 6, 13, 8, 25
could be cool
>>47027397
>exploding 3d3: 3, 18, 7, 18, 11, 16
oh god
what would be the best character to play using these stats as a level 2
>>47028390
only if you plan on kicking him out of the group for being a little bitch
>>47039088
>optimization is powergaming
But it really is stupid.
I mean you don't expect a fighter to carry a dildosword or a ranger to use a stave or a cleric to wield a sword but only use the pommel
>>47039011
Playing an optimized character doesn't necessarily mean said character won't be well-roleplayed, and playing an unoptimized character doesn't necessarily mean said character will be well-roleplayers.
>>47026388
>be rolling for stats
>roll 3d6, keep duplicates and lowest
>dex time
>roll a 4
>become washed out, crippled seventh son of a noble house
>literally born with 2 left feet
>dex roll for shit like standing up
>covered in bruises, constantly talking damage
>have to be strapped into horse by squire
>squire gets sick of taking care of my lefty ass
>ties me loosely in the horse
>spooks the horse, I start to fall as it bolts
>roll for dex
>fall, fail, dash my head against the rocks cause my dex is so bad
>new character time
I'm all about have 8-10s in a couple stats but god damn, anything less than that doesn't make for an enjoyable experience.
>>47027397
Go, average thief!
>>47039171
Yet another example of why rolling for stats sucks
>>47039011
Basically, stormwind fallacy is the idea that rollplay and roleplay are mutually exclusive to one another.
>>47026531
>being dm
>saying no to anything reasonable
These faggots are first over the wall.
What is the best one
1d16 +2
5d4 -2
15d2 -12
The biggest problem with later D&D iterations is how dependent people are on high stats. If you could get by on average stats like in older editions it wouldn't be a problem, but to make a viable character it seems you need at least +3 in one or two stats.
Try playing with the assumption that everyone is average with a 10 in each stat. Earlier editions and retroclones would have no trouble with this as everything your character can do isn't lashed down to their ability score bonuses. Later editions I assume would make this a bit tougher, since you absolutely need bonuses to make a character viable.
>>47039213
6d4k5
>>47039213
15d2 => 39.27% chance of getting 16 or 14 in your stats
With the modifier it means you have 39.27% chance of getting 4 or 3 in your stats.
So no, don't even fucking suggest that.
>>47039239
my ones are all the ones follow the formula Xdy + Z
but arent 3d6 + 0
>>47039252
Wait wew, I need to stop doing drugs
39.27 of getting 10 or 11 I forgot to add the ones..
Okay I think this one is actually the best one of that bunch
>>47039252
>So no, don't even fucking suggest that
I just posted all the rolls that follow the formula XdY + Z
where
X + Z = 3
and
(X * Y) + Z = 18
>>47039273
And I am high, because I got the number wrong
Forgot to add the ones->
16+7 = 23 -> 11
14+8 = 22 -> 10
So actually not a bad formula
>>47039216
The problem was with 3e and the introduction of stat increases with level. If you tried playing something like 2e with increasing stats like that you'd quickly run in to the same problem. It's reasonable to design monsters where you expect a certain to-hit bonus to compete with them but every element of that to-hit bonus now becomes an expectation that the characters MUST have. Players like increasing stats with level, but ultimately it should be a forbidden fruit.
>>47036558
you could just make them roll it in front of you or roll it for them as the dm
I am testing
output (2d10 - 1d4) +2
on anydice and the lowest result should be 3 but anydice say the lowest result should be 0
WTF I am doing wrong?
>>47026388
The system I was introduced with was a houserule variant of the '4d6 drop lowest'.
>Reroll any 1s until they are not 1s
>Roll three sets and choose one
>if you don't like your set of three, discard it and roll another three
>stats go wherever you want
>>47039455
Roll a 1 on each d10, and a 4 on the d4. 2-4+2=0.
>rolling stats
>current year
>>47039455
You're not doing anything wrong, you're just bad at math.
The lowest result IS NOT 'if you were to roll all 1s' - it's the lowest outcome of the set of rolls.
To get 0 you would roll 1s on both d10s, and a 4 on the d4.
>>47037393
Could be pretty cool.
>>47039498
>>47039483
Found the problem, on wolfram alpha I used
>a-1+c=3, (a*b)-(x*y)+c=18, a>0, b>0, x>y, y>0
when I should be using
>a-(x*y)+c=3, (a*b)-(x*y)+c=18, a>0, b>0, x>y, y>0
>>47039674
>when I should be using
>a-(x*y)+c=3, (a*b)-(x*y)+c=18, a>0, b>0, x>y, y>0
change that to
>a-(x*y)+c=3, (a*b)-x+c=18, a>0, b>0, x>y, y>0
I like using 2d6 + 5.
Lower than an 8 and you re-roll.
You put each stat where you want it to be.
Then because luck happens:
Roll 5 stats under 12 you get a guaranteed 16 for a stat.
Roll all under 12 and get a guaranteed 16 and 14.
Still working on what to do if someone rolls too well.
Why not just have 18s across the board?
>>47033218
>Did you know that in 5e you have a dedicated space in you character sheet named Flaw
This is true.
>and you actually get rewarded for roleplaying it?
This is not. There is no set reward for roleplaying it. It's left up to DM fiat.
