Anyone Else Miss Rolling Stats...

533 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anyone else miss rolling stats, then seeing what you can play?

I don't know, I'm just getting tired of hearing, "Put your 18 in this stat for this class," "This combo is unplayable," "Yadda yadda yadda."

It's hard for me and my group to focus on roleplaying when all we do is build super characters.

Just a question: Anyone else miss rolling stats, and then seeing what you qualify for?
The answer is simple. Roll your stats.
NO, not even close.
The answer is simple. Roll your stats.

Exactly right. My group have rolled stats with 4e since it came out and it certainly hasnt affected game balance at all.

For those of you with kids please check out the D&D Parents Group. http://community.wizards.com/dndparents

honestly the only thing rolling stats did that was usefull is it added randomness. The best way of this is rolling and keeping stats as you roll them, meaning you didnt know your character until after you roll them up. other than that i prefer point buy. gives me total control of what i wanted to do.
My group still does the rolling stats thing, but we allow you to pick your best set of 3 sets of rolls (rerolling any set that doesn't qualify for a legal set). This allows people to play more of what they want and everyone likes rolling more dice.
My group and I still roll our stats, we just like
the fun and randomness of it all. It's your game
do with it as you wish, whatever is most fun.
Anyone else miss rolling stats, then seeing what you can play?

I miss rolling stats. Oh how I miss it. Rolling that natural 18 was a huge thrill. I could sit there for days just rolling stats.

I do not in the least miss having to then play a six-month campaign with stats that I rolled, knowing that the guy next to me who rolled higher was going to have a better character, forever.
I hated rolling stats. Other people in my group love it but when you are rolling your characters stats for the fifth time because the rolls have been so low the rules say to reroll while watching the person next to you roll 3 18s it gets really depressing. (I am a notoriously bad roller). But nothing in the rules says you can't roll your stats. It is all up the whoever is running.
I still roll stats most of the time.
Can't say I miss it, no. The randomness of rolling for abilities does contribute to some great PC concepts ;) but that lost its appeal for me very early on (and even in Basic I was often the guy 'exchanging ability score points').

Even before I stumbled upon the '75 point buy' (a new method in Player's Option: Skills and Powers), I preferred methods which improved my chances of getting a specific character (such as 'Method VI' in the AD&D 2nd edition PH).

I preferred 28-point buy in 3.5 and also the option for 'fixed hit points' (an idea which I'm glad 4e embraced ;)). Randomness can be fun, no doubt but only if I don't have something specific in mind to play ahead of time (which is the case often enough). I find it more fun to roleplay this way than the other way.
/\ Art
Rolling Stats is actually a rules-supported option in the PHB (Option #3, I think). It's not gone. It's just not popular, because it's inherently unbalanced. That is not to say that you will always have balance problems when rolling stats, it's just that it naturally lends itself to producing a party of characters with distinctly different levels of competency. Even in 3.5, when I ran the game, I had the players use point-buy, because it gave a more fair base-line of character power. However, one of the DMs I played under was a fan of rolling, and we were content with that in his game.

As a personal opinion, I dislike rolling for stats, because I like having control over who my character is. If I roll only 12s and below, I can't play the "strong man", because my character flat out won't be strong (not to mention mechanically inept in 4E). If I roll only 16s and up, I can't play the sickly, socially-inept but brilliant wizard. Rolling takes control away from me, and as a player, I want full control over who my character is.

As a note, I've seen people rally for rolling stats, but never for rolling race or class or feats. I've wondered why random stats are good, but other, equally important aspects of the character should be chosen.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Anyone who's ever watched me roll stats can understand why I don't exactly miss rolling them...I can't think of a character that I rolled up that didn't have at least 1 attribute below 9.
As a note, I've seen people rally for rolling stats, but never for rolling race or class or feats. I've wondered why random stats are good, but other, equally important aspects of the character should be chosen.

I have rolled for race and class but I must admit I have never rolled random feats
I loved having a 16 14 12 12 9 8 array when the guy next to me had a 18 18 16 14 14 12. We were both melee types. SOOOOOOO fun.

We had to bust down a door once. I was the 3rd strongest with my 14 STR (the 16 went to dex), the ranger and the cleric had more str left over. It was embarassing.
Nope, don't miss rolling stats, don't miss rolling hit points. Those two have always been my undoing. In 2nd edition someone in the group would inevitably roll extremely poorly on their stats and would end up playing a suicidal mage. Hit points were another oddity of course, I've seen a 5th level paladin with 17 hit points taking blows for the 22 hit point wizard.

Can't say I miss those days. They do make good memories, but they should remain as memories.
I miss rolling...but everyone near me prefers point buy so..point buy it is.

I think the only stipulatin I've seen statwise is...below a 6 stat is a reroll. Though the ones I've actually played under that said roll a stat...said 4d6 drop the lowest...roll 8 stats and place 6 of em how you feel....

Wound up taking a roll of 6 in a stat on purpose because I already had some of the char idea in my head..and a 6 STR fit the concept...so I took 6 str...

Stuff like this is prob why I don't synergize well with some 4e concepts...I like it when the mechanics of the system match my roleplay...when I take a char and don't lift something...because they are actually weak...instead of they have an average in the stat and I pretend they are weak. Something about it being in the actual rules seems more real to me...prob because I spent so much time in freeform roleplay that having a good standard that everyone stood by...was a bit of a relief...heh.
No. Don't miss rolling them at all.
I hate rolling stats. Utterly.
I don't miss rolling stats, not in the least. Point-buy is far superior, in my opinion...

Further, I don't understand how "rolling stats, and then seeing what you qualify for" aids roleplaying, as the OP suggested. As I see it, all this does is randomly limit what classes you can play (or, at least, what classes you can play effectively). I would hate to have an interesting idea for a character only for it to turn out I couldn't play said character because my randomly generated stats essentially forced me to play something else (likewise if I wanted to try out a new/different class).
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Das Fliegende Spaghettimonster helfe mir. RAmen.
It's just not popular, because it's inherently unbalanced. That is not to say that you will always have balance problems when rolling stats, it's just that it naturally lends itself to producing a party of characters with distinctly different levels of competency.

I think we have just fumbled over the actual definition of "unbalanced". There is nothing unbalanced about rolling stats. "Unoptimized" perhaps, but not unbalanced. Having every player in the game roll their stats does NOT unbalance the game. It's not that fragile of a system.

I'll give an example:

If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.

Boring...

However, with rolling stats, you have a chance at individuality. The cookie-cutter 18 STR, 16 CON, etc. fighter is not neccessarily the case. Why should two fighters be equally as strong as each other? Why should two thieves be just as dextrous as each other? That's the cookie-cutter syndrome if I've ever seen it. Yeah, you can customize them all differently, but if you strip away the feats, appearance, skills, etc., you have identicle PCs.

No, you might not be the strongest fighter. You might not be the most charismatic bard. You might not be the most dextrous rogue. So what? Why does that matter so much? What happened to individuality? What happened to creativity?

Maybe it's just a product of the times. After 20+ years of D&D, I can take any array of stats, rolled or otherwise, and make a memorable, fun PC that is just as active a participant as the guy next to me with 3 points in his "primary stats" higher than me. Maybe not everyone can. It's a shame, really. Any more, you sit down at the table with 2 fighters in the group, you already know what their stats are before you even see their character sheet. That's not how I learned to roleplay. You appreciate your strengths, accept your weaknesses, and roleplay the hell out of that character. That's how memories are made. Not with cookie-cutter PCs that are overly-predictable. I have little doubt that at some point in the future, character classes will come pre-statted so all you have to do is plug in a few feats, pick your gear, and hit the road. It'll be a sad day.

So...yeah, I miss rolling stats, which is why I still do it. The very first PC I ever made had rolled stats, just like the latest one I made.
I love the concept of rolling stats, but I hate actually doing it. I gave up on rolling as a whole when I realized with all the rerolls I was just making a slightly randomized PB character over a much longer time. Didn't seem worth it in the end.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
Rolling stats seems heavily frowned upon lately, frankly I would prefer it over the point buy. While it wont always give you the most optimized character, it wont always fail to give you playable ones. Rerolls, for me, haven't happened often enough for me to give up on Rolling the stats.

I remember quite fondly the Wizard I rolled three 18's and an 8 for. While she wasn't much of a charmer in personality(I put the 8 in charisma) she was one mean dual wand wielding spell slinger.
If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.

Boring...

So...yeah, I miss rolling stats, which is why I still do it. The very first PC I ever made had rolled stats, just like the latest one I made.

You sir, are awesome.
Good god, no. I've been point buy only since 2001. I'll play what I want to play, not subject to fickle randomization.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
My house rule: 4d6 six, drop the lowest, re-roll 1's six times OR use the array, and place them where they want them, player's choice.

"Is that your final answer?"

-Frequent quote from my side of the DM screen

Eh, I can take it or leave it. There is something to the creativity that rolling leads to, but point spreads makes people feel better, and you don't have to be there to watch people roll dice.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
However, with rolling stats, you have a chance at individuality. The cookie-cutter 18 STR, 16 CON, etc. fighter is not neccessarily the case. Why should two fighters be equally as strong as each other? Why should two thieves be just as dextrous as each other? That's the cookie-cutter syndrome if I've ever seen it. Yeah, you can customize them all differently, but if you strip away the feats, appearance, skills, etc., you have identicle PCs.

Identical PCs if you strip away all the feats, skills, equipment, feature choices, power selections, Paragon Path selection, Epic Destiny selections, personality, back-story, goals and aspirations. Yes. Identical... Assuming both fighters want to be equally good at the exact same things, which may not be the case.

No, you might not be the strongest fighter. You might not be the most charismatic bard. You might not be the most dextrous rogue. So what? Why does that matter so much? What happened to individuality? What happened to creativity?

When control is out of the hands of the player, it's not creativity. It's "making the best of what you have", which should be an in-character situation, not a character-design situation. What if I want to be the strongest fighter, but my rolled stats say I can't be? That means that rolling stats has disallowed a character concept by wrenching control of my character from me, and giving it to dice. Not my idea of a good thing.

Maybe it's just a product of the times. After 20+ years of D&D, I can take any array of stats, rolled or otherwise, and make a memorable, fun PC that is just as active a participant as the guy next to me with 3 points in his "primary stats" higher than me. Maybe not everyone can. It's a shame, really.

Whether or not your stats are on par with your companions' has no bearing on whether or not your character is fun and memorable. You do not need to be noticeably and inherently more or less powerful than the other characters to be unique.

Any more, you sit down at the table with 2 fighters in the group, you already know what their stats are before you even see their character sheet. That's not how I learned to roleplay. You appreciate your strengths, accept your weaknesses, and roleplay the hell out of that character. That's how memories are made. Not with cookie-cutter PCs that are overly-predictable. I have little doubt that at some point in the future, character classes will come pre-statted so all you have to do is plug in a few feats, pick your gear, and hit the road. It'll be a sad day.

Actually, that's just inaccurate. No matter what race/class someone is, when I first sit down with them, I have no idea what their stats are. I've seen Wizards whose INT was of secondary concern to WIS, and Fighters whose DEX was higher than their STR. The important part is that they were able to CHOOSE what their stats are, instead of having their character's competency dictated to them by mindless cubes. The classes are hardly cookie-cutter, and they hardly dictate the choice of ability scores.

Sure, you appreciate your strengths and accept your weaknesses, but there's no reason why you should be forced to play an all-strong or all-weak character just because some mindless cubes said you aren't allowed to play the character you want. I, for one, can roleplay the hell out of a point-bought character just as well as I can one that was rolled. It's just that the point-buy character is more fairly balanced with the rest of the party.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Just a question: Anyone else miss rolling stats, and then seeing what you qualify for?

No. If I want to play a fighter, I want to play a fighter, not get screwed out of it (or have to play a completely incompetant fighter) because I rolled crappy strength but a good intelligence or worse, end up being particularly good at nothing because of a run of terrible die rolls.
Not a fan of rolling stats myself - not because it's unbalancing to the system, but because it always feels sort of terrible to be the one at the table with the weakest array.

But to respond to a different issue brought up in the OP, the reason you see everyone around here (especially the CO boards) talking about point buy is because it's reliable and controlled, which is the only real way you can write a build or guide. You can't suggest a build if not everyone can use it due to not being able to manage the proper stats for the feat prereqs, etc. It's also the method used in official games, so it's the "most" official of the methods.
Nope, not even a little bit.
I'll give an example:

If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.

Boring...

Boring if the stats actually were identical, yes, but your example is extremely flawed. 10 Fighters made with point-buy will not have the same stat array, and many won't be all that close to each other. We have far, far too many ways to build Fighters and too many stats to care about for that statement to be true, even if all 10 of the builders are hard-core optimizers.

Compare, for example, optimal stat arrays for a Dwarven hammer using BRV Fighter, a Half-Orc urgrosh using Tempest Fighter, a Longtooth Shifter polearm 2-H WT Fighter, and a Dragonborn Fighter optimized around Draconic Arrogance.

And that's not even getting into multi-class options, hybrid options, and fringe ideas like optimzing around Harlequin Style.

Honestly, I'd expect variance with 10 optimizers building a Human 1-H WT Heavy Blade using Fighter, let alone something as vague as "fighter", "mage", "thief".

Heck, I see variance in the way people build their Greatspear-wielding Feycharging Eladrin Tactical Warlords, and that's one of the most codified popular builds I'm aware of.

t~

edit: half-ninja'ed by Novacat, but worth saying again. Also, don't miss rolling stats, even a little bit.
If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other.

Maybe fighter isn't the best example of the point you're trying to make. Between the race the player picks, and the build of fighter they choose, and their weapon of choice, and the feats they select or are looking forward to selecting in the future (especially if they have their sights set on multiclassing), any given level 1 fighter could reasonably have a Strength of 16 to 20, with their next-highest stat being Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom...or even Intelligence or Charisma. Sure, some of these builds may not be CharOp Approved⁚, but all would be playable, able to handle their fair share of combat, and be very, very different stat-wise.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Novacat...and tiomys...I gotta learn to type faster...
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Das Fliegende Spaghettimonster helfe mir. RAmen.
edit: half-ninja'ed by Novacat, but worth saying again. Also, don't miss rolling stats, even a little bit.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Novacat...and tiomys...I gotta learn to type faster...

I'll just stamp a couple more silhouettes on my black mask and call it a day. NEENJAH!

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I think we have just fumbled over the actual definition of "unbalanced". There is nothing unbalanced about rolling stats. "Unoptimized" perhaps, but not unbalanced. Having every player in the game roll their stats does NOT unbalance the game. It's not that fragile of a system.

I'll give an example:

If you have 10 people all use point-buy, and they all decide to make a fighter, chances are all of their stats will be almost identicle to each other. Likewise if they all make a mage, or a thief, etc., etc.

Boring...

However, with rolling stats, you have a chance at individuality. The cookie-cutter 18 STR, 16 CON, etc. fighter is not neccessarily the case. Why should two fighters be equally as strong as each other? Why should two thieves be just as dextrous as each other? That's the cookie-cutter syndrome if I've ever seen it. Yeah, you can customize them all differently, but if you strip away the feats, appearance, skills, etc., you have identicle PCs.

No, you might not be the strongest fighter. You might not be the most charismatic bard. You might not be the most dextrous rogue. So what? Why does that matter so much? What happened to individuality? What happened to creativity?

Maybe it's just a product of the times. After 20+ years of D&D, I can take any array of stats, rolled or otherwise, and make a memorable, fun PC that is just as active a participant as the guy next to me with 3 points in his "primary stats" higher than me. Maybe not everyone can. It's a shame, really. Any more, you sit down at the table with 2 fighters in the group, you already know what their stats are before you even see their character sheet. That's not how I learned to roleplay. You appreciate your strengths, accept your weaknesses, and roleplay the hell out of that character. That's how memories are made. Not with cookie-cutter PCs that are overly-predictable. I have little doubt that at some point in the future, character classes will come pre-statted so all you have to do is plug in a few feats, pick your gear, and hit the road. It'll be a sad day.

So...yeah, I miss rolling stats, which is why I still do it. The very first PC I ever made had rolled stats, just like the latest one I made.

Sorry to say, but you didn't seem to understand the basic principles of the game.

The first part is about thinking what you want to play, imagining your character. And not rolling the dice and see what comcept might be derived from that.

The prime choice shall be in the hand of the player, not randomized.

And your other points are not well-thought either. Did you even look at the PHB and the other books? There is no "one way to build character X, Y, Z" but instead there are at least two options for any given class, sometimes even four.
These builds can be distinguished from each other - you won't guess, that's why I'm telling you - by choice of important stats, because depending on your build of choice you often have differing secondary stats, some even differing primary stats.

Stat arrays for fighters will be similar, yes, but there are still ways to customize, depending on your choice of race (dwarves will rarely start with Strength 18) and weapon, since weapon mastery has different qualification criteria for each weapon group. A Hammer-Fighter will look different than a Sword-Fighter.

We are supposed to play heroic characters, so outstanding attribute-scores are the reason you even became an adventurer. Bill the Shepherd might also want to become a fighter, but because he's physically not strong enough, he won't be trained in the martial arts.
Joe the Sailor might feel he would make a glorious bard, but his voice and way to present himself doesn't make people willing to listen to him any longer than two minutes.

If you're not good in what you want to do (and the stats do represent this to an extent) than why did you even become this class?
Everyone needs training, maybe in a kind of academy, sometimes as private scholar. If you're not good enough, your teachers will know it soon enough and might suggest another career for you, if you're lucky.
In the case of self-taught people, some classes will have some kind of "Darwinism", since a non-dextrous thief will get caught and maybe lose a hand. A weak fighter will find a stronger enemy sooner than his stronger counterpart.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

A couple of side note: according to the Character Builder, rolled stats are "house-ruled". Which of course doesn't stop you playing that way, but it's clear that option's not considered to be a peer of point buy or standard array. (Character Builder also doesn't let you point buy more than one stat lower than 10.)

Also, heck, yes, rolling dice is unbalanced. A +1 to hit is pretty much the most valuable thing you can get in 4th Edition; giving up one or possibly two of them because of a bad roll puts you behind the balance curve forever. It's the equivalent of using a +3 weapon when everyone else has a +5.

4E monsters are balanced so that you hit them X percent of the time providing you are soft-optimised for your level with appropriate magic gear. Whether that's a right or wrong decision (and whether or not it's actually achieved across the entire 30 levels), that's the design intention. If you're not running with a 20-something in your main stat (or some appropriately twinky feat/power offset) you're taking a deliberate nerf to your power forever. (Unlike 3.0/3.5 there's no way to raise/lower stats outside the levelling curve.) You will always be less effective against monsters.

More importantly, you're a less valuable member of the party than your point buy/array peers (or your dice-roll peers who rolled better). If you're cool with that, that's fine, but as a general proposition it sucks to be the guy who is just less useful.

There's a place in my heart for that style of luck-of-the-dice whacky highs-and-lows skin-of-your-teeth character creation, and the ridiculously overpowered luck-of-the-draw magic loot that supports it - but that place is wholly taken by 2nd Edition and 3.0/3.5. When I want to play like that, I'll go get those books out, and have a blast. It's not what 4th Edition is, and while I respect your right to play 4E in this kind of "hardcore" mode (and I'm sure you'll have a blast), I can't help but feel that you're better served sticking with a previous edition if randomised stats are something you really enjoy.
I've used random race/class generators before (I made one using excel) when I'm skint on what to play. Helps a bit when I get amusing combinations...
I completely agree with Hocus-Smokus, I too don't doubt that we'll soon see a system where you'll pick your class and the abilities will be pre-assigned. Hell, with the push of a button the DDI Character Builder optimizes your abilities for you so you don't have to think. If you ask me, the MMORPG-ization of the PnP-RPG has already begun.

Point buy = every character being homogenized. Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remaining three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).

Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those that take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.
Point buy = every character being homogenized.

Pfft. Hardly. Read the half-dozen posts before yours for why this isn't even remotely accurate.

Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remain three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).

OR... you can roll randomly and put the highest roll in your primary stat, followed by your second-highest in your secondary stat, and then the rest spread out among your remaining four abilities. Big difference, eh? Besides this being a Straw Man, it's not even a good Straw Man within its own context.
Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.

[sarcasm]OMGWHAT? You wanted control? Over making your own character? You... modern, teenage, MMO-playing heathens. Next thing you'll be telling me that you didn't even roll for your race and class![/sarcasm]

Not to sound like an attack-dog, but the arguments for rolling stats just don't make any sense to me. Perhaps if someone could point out an advantage to rolling over point-buy, because all I've seen so far is:

• "You can still role-play even if you roll stats." Well, you can role-play even if you point-buy, too.
• "Point-buy always results in the same set of stats." This is false.

I'm looking for a solid, true reason, any reason at all, why random stats is better in any way to point-bought stats.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Point buy = every character being homogenized. Everyone puts most of the point in their primary ability, then their secondary and then takes the remaining three or four points and spreads them out among their remaining four abilities (or you can have the Character Builder do that for you).

Back when I was playing 1e or 2e and even the brief time I played 3e we always rolled three sets of 4d6 (dropping the lowest die), picking the best set and assign the rolls were we wanted them. I applaud those that take the rolls where they land and build a character around the ability scores but that didn't allows us the control we wanted so we ditched that rule.

I have difficulty reconciling the fact that you applaud people with the imagination to take a set of random stats and build an effective character out of those stats, but apparently lack the imagination to understand why point-buy does not equal homogenization. While it's generally true that people "put most of their points in their primary ability", the specific number of those points varies widely enough to make the rest of your claim meaningless.

t~
I have made several 1st-level characters a few months ago, as preparation in case someone runs a game that I can join (I know, I have too much time on my hands). As an exercise in this "homogenization" theory, I would like Talthus or Hocus-Smokus to guess some of their ability scores. (Let's make it easy-mode and just guess their primary and secondary scores).

I'll leave them in sblocks, and trust the honor system that you'll guess before looking.

Eladrin Fighter
STR 16
INT 17

Human Wizard
INT 16
WIS 18

Dragonborn Warlord
STR 18
CHA 18

Elf Ranger
WIS 18
STR 16


If even one of those was what you expected, I'd be surprised. I made these months ago, and I didn't give them odd ability scores just for the hell of it. These character are optimized, in their own way, to allow character concepts that are a little non-traditional. In a way, I might add, that rolling stats probably wouldn't allow.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Sign In to post comments