Community

For me, the deal with random die rolls is this: If you're running a one-shot game, then sure, go random roll.  If you're looking at a campaign, then why would you want your char idea to be hit by random chance?  For that, go point-buy.

The problem with DnD's random roll is that there's better random roll generations in different games.  F'r instance, Reign.  It has a point-buy and a random roll option, but it's set up so randomly rolled characters aren't either super-statted or crap-statted, the randomness boosts stats AND give interesting sides.  To translate, say your roll also gives backgrounds along with your stats, such as "Press-Ganged by Navy" or "Escaped Sacrifice" or "The King's Shoe Cobbler".  Each background gives little perks to your stats and skills.

With that, you can have randomly rolled and point-buyed characters in the game, and both have equal amounts of fun.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:45PM, NightsLastHero wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:04PM, NightsLastHero wrote:

according to the hero builders guidebook the average for 4d6 and drop the lowest should be 11.5

That is I am pretty sure mathematically/statistically incorrect, are you mis-remembering? The median is like 12.2446. (I think reported up thread too).

Except I seem to recall even further enhancements all the time where people also reroll 1s which would step it up even further.

No, I just copied that from the book itself.

Gack.. I think that calls for questioning the legitimacy of the source materia. You can find explicit break downs of where that 12.2446 comes from on line if you hunt around a bit.. including listing the odds for each individual number. (There is a page on wizards own site I thought).

A point buy system can be configured to give 12.25 or so.. being negligibly different in median

I wonder if anyone has the breakdown of it if they re-roll 1s? It brings the minimum up to 6 and that has got to be a heavy impact and its exactly the method I have seen.

 

Is re-rolling 1s a House Rule?

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:25PM, jdnyc wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:45PM, NightsLastHero wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Garthanos wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:04PM, NightsLastHero wrote:

according to the hero builders guidebook the average for 4d6 and drop the lowest should be 11.5

That is I am pretty sure mathematically/statistically incorrect, are you mis-remembering? The median is like 12.2446. (I think reported up thread too).

Except I seem to recall even further enhancements all the time where people also reroll 1s which would step it up even further.

No, I just copied that from the book itself.

Gack.. I think that calls for questioning the legitimacy of the source materia. You can find explicit break downs of where that 12.2446 comes from on line if you hunt around a bit.. including listing the odds for each individual number. (There is a page on wizards own site I thought).

A point buy system can be configured to give 12.25 or so.. being negligibly different in median

I wonder if anyone has the breakdown of it if they re-roll 1s? It brings the minimum up to 6 and that has got to be a heavy impact and its exactly the method I have seen.

 

Is re-rolling 1s a House Rule?

Might have been but I am pretty certain I seen quite a bit back in the day.
 

well the source material is wizards of the coast... but then again one only has to look at the current monsters to question the source

Nov 19, 2012 -- 8:20PM, Doug_Lampert wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 11:42AM, Jenks wrote:

Have you ever TRIED asking a bunch of people who claim to prefer rolled what their initial ability scores were, checked the point buys required, and averaged.

I have, several times. The average is ALWAYS over 40 points by 3.x point buy. EVERY TIME.

The 25 recommended by the DMG or the 28 needed to make the "average" set of legal rolls aren't even on the table.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you agreeing with me? Nightslasthero is suggesting that point buy be dead even in potential scores with rolling, that's what I'm arguing. Not that it has been worse/better in the past.

I'm arguing that your BLATANTLY FALSE claim that rolling must be better on average than point buying or no one will use it is BLATANTLY FALSE because die rollers all reroll or the GM just gives permision to adjust if the rolls are "too bad", and that in fact the statistical average is considered too bad to use.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 11:42AM, Jenks wrote:

 Hardly anyone plays 4d6 6 times and keep the result as long as it meets the minimums in the PHB. And those that do use reroll by suicide whenever they get anything vaguely CLOSE to 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 (a legal array that you're supposed to play).

 
You are correct, and that's an issue with rolling for sure. I said earlier in the thread that I prefer point buy because of this, but that doesn't change what I'm arguing. 

As for your claim that people don't like to gamble. WRONG. Las Vegas stays in business because people LOVE to gamble so much that they will do so even KNOWING in advance that the house takes a cut off the top and always wins.

People's willingness to take bad odds bets supports a multi-trillion dollar a year industry, you won't convince me it doesn't exist.

Yes, a lot of people do like to gamble, but that is not how people make logical decisions :P Most people gamble for the sake of gambling (Which might cause some people to still do rolls if they were even), but most people do not see gambling as a superior decision to stability in most aspects of life :P 

What's a "logical" decision? Once you've defined that, why is playing an RPG logical at all. My Ph.D. is in mathematics, I'm an expert in logic, that word doesn't mean what you think it means, logic lets you get from axioms to conclusions consistent with those axioms. But there's no reason logic or logical people should prefer consistency in RPG ability scores (unless they desire game balance, in which case they'll want point buy to be more attractive than rolling and want a higher point buy, the opposite of your desire), and in something like a game where you can reroll (by suicide if neccessary) if you want high abilities the "logical" method is to always roll unless the point buy allows something equal to the MAXIMUM possible roll (all 18s in other words). Since fans of rolling will ALWAYS modify the rolling method to average higher average results than point buy. History shows this quite clearly.

In any case, even accepting your incorrect claim that it's "logical" to want a point buy's consistency, why do you think people will be more "logical" over a tabletop game than when there's big money at stake?

First off, you are correct. the word I should have used is "rational" instead of "logical". As well, I did not attack you one bit so I don't see a reason for you to get so high and mighty on me as if it would scare me. I simply replied to your comments :P

Second, did you read my later post? I addressed all of this. The breakdown between the mechanic and how people abuse it IS a problem. But the solution isn't to punish the mechanic, but to better educate DMs and players about how the mechanic is supposed to function. Will this stop all people from rerolling? No. But that's a shortcomming of players and DMs, not the mechanic at that point. I admittedly feel pressured to let people reroll if they have bad stats, so I use point buy instead because it bypasses all that. 

Now I'm not saying I'm not going to let someone gain 1 stat here, or 1 stat there like Hocus mentioned. It is all about fun after all. But allowing someone to reroll 2 or more times because they didn't like their stats is undermining the spirit of the mechanic, and you should just use point buy at that point. Continuing to do this will just foster a power gaming mindset in your party. Believe me, I have personally seen this happen :P

Even though I don't use it a lot, I respect the rolling mechanic and what it represents. But what it represents has been lost at this point in D&D where stats have become so Min/Max heavy that if your character doesn't have an 18 at least in 1 stat it feels like a failed character. It worked best in the days of 1e and 2e where stats were far more lenient.

To be honest, if it's such an issue with some people, why don't we just oust it entirely?