Do most people prefer rolling or point buys for ability scores?

[cybersavant]

12 hours ago, TheFred said:

Nothing worse than having a brilliant concept that works really well for this specific game only to have it foiled by random chance.

 

has that happened to you?

[TheFred]

Yeah, of course it has. Roll dice enough times and you'll get unlucky (one way or another) plenty. At any rate, I'm not sure why you should take the chance.

It also seems totally bizarre to me that people think rolling stats is normal, but won't roll for anything else. How about a game where we use point-buy, but you roll for your feats? I can't really imagine anyone doing that.

[ABlotOfInk]

If we're talking about 5e, which seems to be the biggest angle people are coming from, the only character choices I could see possibly be restricted is multiclassing if you don't have enough stats over 13? The chances of that are super low (I attempted the math but eh.) Which, if you don't have a single stat over 13 it would be extremely weird if your DM didn't let you reroll your stats again?

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by ABlotOfInk (see edit history)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've never understood the idea that a few points difference in base ability scores makes such a massive difference that people say some of what they've been saying in this and other threads on the topic of character abilities, at least not wrt 3.P at the very least.

 

I mean, if the dice decide to absolutely run you over and the GM doesn't observe something like the rule in 3e where an array whose ability modifiers sum less than +1 gets to reroll then, sure, you could end up with a sickly, crippled, crass moron of a character but I don't think I've -ever- seen that.

 

Outside of the above circumstance though, you're talking about a few points, probably not more than 20% better or worse than another character trying to do the same job. It's certainly noticeable but I'd hardly call it the difference between a character being competant and capable vs total trash. With the default 4d6k3 and assigned as the player likes, the odds of the gap between what you get and the ideal for your class will be larger than that are gonna be slim and the odds of getting a bigger gap between what you get and what you might get from a point-buy is negligible.

 

Do people not get the odds? Is it excessive hyperbole? Is such a mild difference really totally unaccpetable that large a proportion of the community? I don't get it.

[Kylia Quilor]

Everyone has had that one experience where they got aggressively mediocre rolls and someone else got really — amazing ones, and that one instance is their sole data point.

[cybersavant]

6 hours ago, TheFred said:

Yeah, of course it has. Roll dice enough times and you'll get unlucky (one way or another) plenty. At any rate, I'm not sure why you should take the chance.

It also seems totally bizarre to me that people think rolling stats is normal, but won't roll for anything else. How about a game where we use point-buy, but you roll for your feats? I can't really imagine anyone doing that.

 

maybe i'm just used to rolling stats

i've played characters with less than optimum stats - most actually turned out to be quite fun - i had an elf with no dex, for one

i don't like the in order rule and don't join those games

i also don't usually have a pre-conceived concept for a character until i go through the GM's world /campaign notes/background

you would absolutely hate Traveller - even most of your skills and training are rolled, but that's the big appeal to me; i end u[ playing characters i never would have tried, and usually end up having a great time because/in spite of that

 

in the past i've run games where the pcs are special - so best 3 of 4 dice, re-roll any 1s, put in any order

Edited November 29, 2023 by cybersavant (see edit history)

[Suzuki Stumpy]

2 hours ago, cybersavant said:

ou would absolutely hate Traveller - even most of your skills and training are rolled, but that's the big appeal to me; i end u[ playing characters i never would have tried, and usually end up having a great time because/in spite of that

I think where Traveller wins in this regard is that all characters are supposed to be ordinary Joes/Janes rather than God-like fantastic heroes, so it's less about the stats and more about how you apply your skills/roleplaying to the task in hand.

I've never been a fan of the OG Traveller rules where your character can (and is very likely to) die during creation ... especially towards the end of a long creation session, but that's about it in that regard. Furthermore, the whole lifepath system for chargen works well because it's not just about the roll for an individual stat, but about how you spread the love across all stats and skills unlike (say) 5e/PF where you roll stats and then that's pretty much it apart from at specific levels where you can get permanent adjustments.

[TheFred]

Exactly. Random character generation can be fun if that's what you're going for... but it's not normally what most of these games are going for - it's kind of the point of a lot of RPGs that you get to design your own character (it's not so much about optimal stats as choice and agency). And, in those cases (which I enjoy on occasion), it should be more than just stats.

In 3.5/5e/PF, though, stats are just way too big a part of the character. Without the right stats, certain characters just can't function at all, or they function very badly. Those are also systems with pretty strong assumptions of character power and having someone who's basically a level or more behind and someone else an effective level or more ahead is not really healthy, particularly when you haven't specifically accounted for it.

I hope I'm not upsetting Eric by repeating something he cut from my last post (I think it was the bit that went along with it that he was unhappy about) but in a game right now, I just rolled 14/14/13/13/13/11... whilst someone else rolled 17/14/13/13/13/11. I'm not really sure how having one character get a +4 bonus to one ability score over another makes anything better. It feels pretty bad to have the 14, but I don't think I would want to have the 17 when someone else doesn't, either. Worst of all, people haven't even designed characters at this point! It's not like it makes any particular sense story-wise for one character to be just better than the other, because we don't know what they are yet.

[Basil_Bottletop]

12 hours ago, Kylia Quilor said:

Everyone has had that one experience where they got aggressively mediocre rolls and someone else got really amazing ones, and that one instance is their sole data point.

Some people only get the chance to play at a table once in a blue moon. Then that one campaign lasts for most of the year. So they are reminded of the fact that one guy is getting a significant modifier bump every other roll while you're struggling to get to do anything.

Being glib doesn't help the conversation. (if you're not being glib, then I apologize)

[Kylia Quilor]

I mean, there's also playing here on the weave, and plenty of rolling is still done here. I wasn't trying to be glib though, I was responding to the point about extremely bad rolls or extremely good rolls not being common in practice, and all I was saying is that sometimes people let that rare extreme instance be the thing that dominates their thoughts on the subject.

 

EDIT: And apparently somehow my post that you quote is gone?

  

8 hours ago, Suzuki Stumpy said:

I think where Traveller wins in this regard is that all characters are supposed to be ordinary Joes/Janes rather than God-like fantastic heroes, so it's less about the stats and more about how you apply your skills/roleplaying to the task in hand.

Also, maybe this is just me, but since when is every D&D and Pathfinder PC supposed to be a godlike fantastic hero? Tons of games center around the PCs being more or less just 'above average' (because one has to be above average to be willing to take the kinds of chances adventureres do). an 18 isn't even close to godlike.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Kylia Quilor (see edit history)

[TheFred]

As someone who's been around here a while... yeah, I've had mediocre rolls when someone else gets something great. Doesn't really matter if that's one data point; it's one too many (see also: my previous example). I've also had good rolls when others have had good rolls, amazing rolls when others haven't, pretty much every permutation you can care to think of. It all just adds up to: this sucks.

2 hours ago, Kylia Quilor said:

Also, maybe this is just me, but since when is every D&D and Pathfinder PC supposed to be a godlike fantastic hero? Tons of games center around the PCs being more or less just 'above average' (because one has to be above average to be willing to take the kinds of chances adventureres do). an 18 isn't even close to godlike.

Since... forever? Like, your characters typically get class levels, which means they are already ahead of probably the vast majority of the populace (who, by the way, use the Elite Array at best and quite possibly have all 10s and 11s).

At any rate, I think the point still stands: if the system is not focused on the stats but the problem-solving then the stats matter less. If it's 3.5/PF, the difference between a 14 and an 18 is dramatic. Handing one of those out to one person but not another for no real reason seems not just bizarrely pointless (which it would be even if those stats were almost irrelevant) but really bad because of the impact it has.

I still haven't heard of anyone rolling for starting level in this thread, which is broadly a similar prospect.

[Michael Silverbane]

4 hours ago, TheFred said:

I still haven't heard of anyone rolling for starting level in this thread, which is broadly a similar prospect.

We did it at a few tables back in the day. It wasn't much of a stretch from starting every new character at level 1 for an ongoing campaign to going to (I think it was) 1d6-1.

[Kelb_Panthera]

8 hours ago, TheFred said:

If it's 3.5/PF, the difference between a 14 and an 18 is dramatic.

See, this is the kind of statement that just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to single you out here, Fred, since it's a very common statement but if you'd be so kind as to elaborate on *how* it's so dramatic, I'd really appreciate it.

 

From where I sit; it's an admittedly noticeable difference in carry capacity if we're talking strength (around 70% greater for the 18), the difference between qualifying for two-weapon fighting without a race or equipment boost on dexterity, and (this is the part that makes it difficult for me to accept as true) 10% difference on any roll of the dice regardless of which abiilty it's assigned to. That just doesn't seem that dramatic to me, particularly in a system as complex as 3e/PF1 where ability score bonuses make up a small portion of the overall bonuses to almost anything by level ~5-7 or so.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Kelb_Panthera (see edit history)

[ABlotOfInk]

18 hours ago, TheFred said:

I just rolled 14/14/13/13/13/11... whilst someone else rolled 17/14/13/13/13/11

14/14/13/13/13/11 is stronger than a point buy build. It racks up 32 points out of the usual 27 you're suggested to be allotted in 5e. If you're talking about your stats after racial bonuses it's equal to a point buy build.

Also you've got a +2 in your highest stat and someone else has +3 (or +3 and +4 if you're both putting your racial bonus into them.) Does that single +1 for someone else really ruin your game? You're on the same team if you're worried about effectiveness the extra +1 is an overall boon. If you're worried about someone overshadowing you in game that's something that should be discussed between players and managed by the gm rather than needing to be strictly mechanically optimized.

I know some people absolutely can't stand being non-optimized, and that's just different play preferences. Personally I'm in it far more for the rp experience and stats don't impact that too much.

Honestly, I like point buy sometimes because it lets me set a low score. It can be fun to give your character a clear flaw or weakness haha. It's also way more of a rush for everyone around the table when a character is forced to do something they're bad at and succeed anyways. Some of my most memorable moments at the table have been situations like the barbarian having to make an int save and succeeding or the wizard managing to pull the rest of the group up off a dangling rope.

[cybersavant]

i can't speak about 5e, i do have experience with basic, 1e, 2e, 3.x, and Pf 1e

i don't understand how those of you against rolling stats - i don't see how it unbalance characters

to me, the classes are already unbalanced - and in the earlier versions they advanced via different xp totals, so not at the same level after 1st

then there are new games, like WWN that you can pick an array or roll, but that is in order [ i've always chosen to roll stats and background picks]

if that doesn't quite fit my initial concept [ if i had one ] then i look at what i got and try something new

the games aren't character vs character, they're character group vs others