Because of the general uselessness of odd scores, I would be fine if, even-number scores only give the bonus to Checks and Defense, while odd-number scores only give the bonus to attacks and spell DCs.
(If splitting a bonus by three score points: Checks, then Defense, then Attack.)
Now THAT is a cool new idea! You would need to get both at 20 though so you dont end up with a max of +4 to attack/spell DC. That would put an N in next
Problem is, recalibrating the dice roll method would be next to impossible. All you can really do is go down to 3d6, which drastically lowers results, not slightly. I don't see any reason to mess with a system that's been in every edition of the game without problems.
Another problem with the current standard array is that only Humans are capable of starting with an 18 in a stat. Other people have complained about this. With a 16 in the array, any race can have an 18 to start with, and humans can have a 19, but they both can have a +4.
That might be too much with bounded accuracy, but Humans will get it either way, so at least they shouldn't be the only ones. Unless we wanted to greatly lower the starting array and make 3d6 the standard roll, or if we weakened Humans and didn't change the array or the roll.
IIRC, 1st edition, and maybe BECMI, used 3d6, not 4d6, but 4d6 drop the lowest quickly became an option because it lessened the possible variance.
I tried having my players use the 3d6 method for stat generation in the campaign I'm starting, in an attempt to keep their scores within the bounds of what they'd get using point-buy, but the results were less than satisfactory. Even allowing one of them to reroll three times still resulted in abysmal scores. I wasn't happy with the results of letting them roll 4d6, either, as the results were too high, but at least they weren't as far off from point-buy.
IIRC, 1st edition, and maybe BECMI, used 3d6, not 4d6, but 4d6 drop the lowest quickly became an option because it lessened the possible variance.
I tried having my players use the 3d6 method for stat generation in the campaign I'm starting, in an attempt to keep their scores within the bounds of what they'd get using point-buy, but the results were less than satisfactory. Even allowing one of them to reroll three times still resulted in abysmal scores. I wasn't happy with the results of letting them roll 4d6, either, as the results were too high, but at least they weren't as far off from point-buy.
Actually, there were four official systems for generating stats in AD&D (1e) (five, including rules from Unearthed Arcana) and none of them was straight 3d6 in order. Oddly enough, when the PHB was released in 1978, there were no published rules for rolling ability scores for AD&D. So, many people continued as they had done before (i.e. 3d6 in order). However, Gygax himself noted the importance in AD&D of having relatively higher scores (since, in the original rules, there were very few bonuses/minuses attached to ability scores), and this is reflected in the methods presented in the DMG, released in 1979.
They are: (1) 4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange to taste. (2) 3d6, twelve times, choose six highest, arrange to taste. (3) 3d6, in order, for each ability score 6 times, choose the highest for each [NB, requires 36 rolls!] (4) 3d6, in order, to produce 12 sets, choose desired set [NB, this requires 72 rolls!]
Unearthed Arcana allowed for a fifth method, only for humans, for choosing class first then then consulting a chart. In the chart, a number of d6 would be listed for each stat (from 9d6 in the most favorable to 3d6 in least). Roll the appropriate number of dice for the chosen class and add the three highest dice for each stat.
Unearthed Arcana allowed for a fifth method, only for humans, for choosing class first then then consulting a chart. In the chart, a number of d6 would be listed for each stat (from 9d6 in the most favorable to 3d6 in least). Roll the appropriate number of dice for the chosen class and add the three highest dice for each stat.
Yes, I remember using that in a campaign back in the day, the idea is interesting: class affecting the number of dice you roll per score.
IIRC, 1st edition, and maybe BECMI, used 3d6, not 4d6, but 4d6 drop the lowest quickly became an option because it lessened the possible variance.
I tried having my players use the 3d6 method for stat generation in the campaign I'm starting, in an attempt to keep their scores within the bounds of what they'd get using point-buy, but the results were less than satisfactory. Even allowing one of them to reroll three times still resulted in abysmal scores. I wasn't happy with the results of letting them roll 4d6, either, as the results were too high, but at least they weren't as far off from point-buy.
Actually, there were four official systems for generating stats in AD&D (1e) (five, including rules from Unearthed Arcana) and none of them was straight 3d6 in order. Oddly enough, when the PHB was released in 1978, there were no published rules for rolling ability scores for AD&D. So, many people continued as they had done before (i.e. 3d6 in order). However, Gygax himself noted the importance in AD&D of having relatively higher scores (since, in the original rules, there were very few bonuses/minuses attached to ability scores), and this is reflected in the methods presented in the DMG, released in 1979.
They are: (1) 4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange to taste. (2) 3d6, twelve times, choose six highest, arrange to taste. (3) 3d6, in order, for each ability score 6 times, choose the highest for each [NB, requires 36 rolls!] (4) 3d6, in order, to produce 12 sets, choose desired set [NB, this requires 72 rolls!]
Unearthed Arcana allowed for a fifth method, only for humans, for choosing class first then then consulting a chart. In the chart, a number of d6 would be listed for each stat (from 9d6 in the most favorable to 3d6 in least). Roll the appropriate number of dice for the chosen class and add the three highest dice for each stat.
So, where did they get the "3d6 in order" method they used before? That's what we used the first few times I played, in 1st edition.
IIRC, 1st edition, and maybe BECMI, used 3d6, not 4d6, but 4d6 drop the lowest quickly became an option because it lessened the possible variance.
I tried having my players use the 3d6 method for stat generation in the campaign I'm starting, in an attempt to keep their scores within the bounds of what they'd get using point-buy, but the results were less than satisfactory. Even allowing one of them to reroll three times still resulted in abysmal scores. I wasn't happy with the results of letting them roll 4d6, either, as the results were too high, but at least they weren't as far off from point-buy.
Actually, there were four official systems for generating stats in AD&D (1e) (five, including rules from Unearthed Arcana) and none of them was straight 3d6 in order. Oddly enough, when the PHB was released in 1978, there were no published rules for rolling ability scores for AD&D. So, many people continued as they had done before (i.e. 3d6 in order). However, Gygax himself noted the importance in AD&D of having relatively higher scores (since, in the original rules, there were very few bonuses/minuses attached to ability scores), and this is reflected in the methods presented in the DMG, released in 1979.
They are: (1) 4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange to taste. (2) 3d6, twelve times, choose six highest, arrange to taste. (3) 3d6, in order, for each ability score 6 times, choose the highest for each [NB, requires 36 rolls!] (4) 3d6, in order, to produce 12 sets, choose desired set [NB, this requires 72 rolls!]
Unearthed Arcana allowed for a fifth method, only for humans, for choosing class first then then consulting a chart. In the chart, a number of d6 would be listed for each stat (from 9d6 in the most favorable to 3d6 in least). Roll the appropriate number of dice for the chosen class and add the three highest dice for each stat.
So, where did they get the "3d6 in order" method they used before? That's what we used the first few times I played, in 1st edition.
I can't attest to original D&D as I have never owned it, but as for the rest of pre-WotC D&D, some things to note about ability score generation:
AD&D 1e, as mentioned above, was actually much less brutal than people blame it for being - the only place where it mentions rolling scores with 3d6 it also includes rolling multiple times because they wanted you to get higher scores.
Basic D&D encouraged 3d6 rolled in order... but even that wasn't as brutal as it sounds because you were, in the versions I read, allowed to swap a pair of scores and to reduce some scores your class didn't really utilize to raise your Prime Requisite on a 2 for 1 basis, which combined allows for most sets of rolled scores to be useful for any of that games classes you wish to play.
AD&D 2e, however, puts things to a default of exactly as brutal as AD&D is being widely remembered as being - Method I (the only method detailed prior to the heading "Alternative Dice-Rolling Methods") is 3d6 in order.
To contrast: AD&D 1e says, to paraphrase, "you could roll 3d6 in order, but you need two scores of 15+ to have a good chance to survive so you should probably use one of these other methods" and AD&D says, to quote precisely "Only a few characters will have high scores (15 and above), so you should treasure these characters."
A full flip from "you need two 15s" to "15s are rare, so be happy if you get one" - and with basically no change in what a particular score rating means for your character.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
So, where did they get the "3d6 in order" method they used before? That's what we used the first few times I played, in 1st edition.
Rolling 3d6 in order comes from the way the original game was played (cf. Men and Magic, p. 10):
"Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid them in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma."
Note, curiously, that the oldest expression of the rules as the referee (i.e. the DM) roll for scores, but in practice I know players generally did. Also, while it does not explicitly state "in order" here, we can tell from the example given on the same page that they were rolled in order, and not to taste:
"A sample of the record of a character appears like this:
This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class. With a strength of only 6 there was no real chance for him to become a fighter. His constitutional score indicates good health and the ability to take punishment of most forms. A dexterity of 9 (low average) means that he will not be particularly fast nor accurate. He is below average in charisma, but not hopelessly so." (ibid.) [NB, a character with a prime requisite of 13-14 gained a 5% bonus to earned experience, 15+ a 10% bonus, 7-8 a -10%, and 6 or less -20%, so he "would have progressed faster as a Cleric" not only because clerics have a generally more favorable rate of gaining levels anyway, but taking into account having a 13 in Wisdom.]
So, people who played D&D back in the day just played as they had with the original sets (plus the supplements, articles from Strategic Review and The Dragon, etc.), and when the Monster Manual and Players Handbook came out in 1977 and 1978, they just used them as new bits and pieces to the game. AD&D wasn't a "complete" system until the DMG came out in 1979, and even then there is not perfect consistency across the 3 AD&D orginal rule books. People didn't mind so much if they already knew how to play, so I have no doubt that many players still rolled 3d6 in order after the DMG came out.
Also, note that, in the original rulebooks (i.e. not counting even the Greyhawk supplement), ability scores did very little, mechanically. Prime requisites helped (or hindered) experience (see my post above), a Constitution of 15+ added one point per hit die, 6 or less subtracted one, and scores between 7-12 had only a percentage "chance of surviving" (i.e. from petrification, polymorph, etc.), Dexterity 12+ added one to missile fire to hit, 9 or less subtracted one. That's it!
So, apart from considerations of the rate of gaining experience low or high scores didn't mean a great deal. Greyhawk added some incentive for high scores (e.g. high and "exceptional" Strength for fighters' bonus to hit and damage, Dexterity to fighters' chance to evade being hit, rules for chances to "know" a spell for Intelligence for magic users), but still, for the most part, a middling score was just fine, even in a prime requisite.
While the logic of wanting high ability scores to be mechanically meaningful is an old one in the game, it has also haunted the game as well, and there is good logic in making ability scores mean less, while making class and levelmean more. This makes actual play more important than the sub-game of character creation (and with it, system mastery). I don't see the game going back to that simplicity, but it's worth noting.
