Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon
There are some weird rolling schemes out there. The weirdest I've experienced used the normal 4d6 drop one, but tacked on the choice to re-roll 1s, 2s, and pairs before choosing the die to remove. Assuming you had any idea what you were doing, the minimum possible roll becomes 15, and the chances of that were fairly small.
Sure, big numbers are good, but it just seemed so weird to push all stats up that high. In games with other DMs, we just did the standard roll method.
|
Yeah, I agree. A lot of these systems are weirdly "compromise-generous".
The existance of the standard array (assign 15,14,13,12,10,8 as you wish) has actually been a great boon. Because now the protocol is this:
First, choose whether to use the standard array, or to risk it, rolling the dice. If you choose to roll, roll in front of a witness (4d6 drop lowest, arrange in any order) and then you are stuck with those stats. That's your character.
What makes this so good is that if it's just 4d6 drop the lowest arrange in order, and that's the only choice, and then when the character sucks, the player is like "uh please can I reroll this" or "please can I reroll the ones and twos" etc. And you end up with more and more cockamamie schemes and wonky numbers. But if you're offered the standard array first (and the standard array is low in 5e), but then chose to roll, you are more likely to accept the roll. It was your choice to gamble, after all.
What's interesting is that this is a way to make 4d6-etc-etc feel better without actually messing with the math. The fact that you choose
before you roll is key there. If the rule was 4d6-etc-etc and if you're not satisfied, you can switch over to the standard array, that would significantly change the average characters because the floor to rolled characters would jump way up. I'm so glad they didn't do that.
When I first heard of the 4d6 drop lowest, I thought it was dumb. It sounded like a compromise from someone who hadn't been happy with their 3d6 stats. Why couldn't the design just use 3d6 and then scale the rest of the game around that? But... I've reconsidered, and here's some of the advantages of 4d6 drop lowest:
- It's got some history, being present in the 1e DMG as option one.
- Since the modern versions of the game give you a bonus based on half your score (after you've subtracted ten), it's good that they look centered around ten, which makes for easier conversion between score and mod, but actually (because of the slightly higher curve) are centered aroud +1. This is perfect! If it had been centered around 0 you'd get a bunch of -2, -3 scores and doing that kinda subtraction at the game table is annoying. Now, you usually get a few -1, a couple of ±0, some +1 and +2 and one +3. It gives you a 26% chance of a +1, a 20% of a +0, and only a six percent chance of -2 or lower. As someone who hates subtraction, that's perfect. And then the game is scaled around that, the typical DCs and ACs etc.
If the average is 15 that means you need to add three or four or five all the time, too. The entire game is shifted upward and that's also annoying. Lagom size of the mod is what you want, i.e. centered around 1 but skewed so that it's more likely to err higher than lower. I.e. 4d6 drop lowest is perfect♥
Edit: this is just the thinking at my home table, all other groups are ofc free to do as they wish ♥