I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ) -

Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.

You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.

Quote from: Psikerlord;954247I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ) -

Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.

You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.

Smart idea for its purposes.

I hate random rolls for stats.  Part of what I enjoy about RPGs are the tactical elements.  While RNG during play is fun and makes you come up with backup plans etc. - rolling for stats can permanently gimp your character which can utterly suck.

Random rolls for one-shots or games where I expect to die like Call of Cthulhu is fine - but for a campaign it's the touch of death.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;954250I hate random rolls for stats.  Part of what I enjoy about RPGs are the tactical elements.  While RNG during play is fun and makes you come up with backup plans etc. - rolling for stats can permanently gimp your character which can utterly suck.

Random rolls for one-shots or games where I expect to die like Call of Cthulhu is fine - but for a campaign it's the touch of death.

What if you are allowed to choose someone else's rolled array (possibly with a small penalty)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;954245We need to get the tiny violin smiley back.

I recently had somebody roll the second ever Paladin in my D&D game.  Considering how fucking powerful the Greyhawk paladin is, that's a damn good thing.

I'd rather have a rare, powerful paladin then a frequent, gimped paladin.

Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent.  They weren't worth the good rolls that you got.  Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin.  Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17.  Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.  Also, in AD&D you got no stat bonus until 16 (except for Dex which started at 15, I think.  Don't have the books in reach.)  I think they also needed a 12?  13?  In Strength and Wisdom, and 9? in everything else, so all that, when if you roll a 16, in any stat, save for Charisma (Unless you want small army at your beck and call...  HYPERBOLE!) meant you got at the very least an XP bonus (I think it was 10%?) and either a bonus to certain saves and in the case of Dexterity or Strength, a bonus to hit with certain weapon types.  That's better than anything that the Paladin gave.

So yeah, learn the new editions if you wanna talk smack, Smiley, otherwise, go sit in your corner and wave your cane at us some more.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;954246Also, in OD&d there IS no such thing as minimum stat scores for the base classes.

Shitting up the game system was the problem, not random rolling for stats.  If forced to play PATHFINDER I won't use 3d6 in order because if you don't have several 13s and 14s and at least one 18 the system will ass-rape you until your nose bleeds.

Yeah, yeah, I get it, I'm doing it wrong again, I'm so sorry your Highness for not playing YOUR edition.  The RIGHT one.

Quote from: Psikerlord;954247I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ) -

Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.

You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.

What I did is I let ALL players roll, then let the table decide which of the player rolls the entire table chooses.  And let them assign the numbers to whatever stat.  It's more egalitarian and prevents having one person playing the Thief with the highest roll of 7 in his Con.

When crafting a dungeon adventure, I'd rather not have to deal with issues of trying to balance around someone who will die every fight, and the rest of the table having fun.  Character death should be determined by player choice, not that he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn because some random number generator gave him a bad average to work with.

I prefer it.

I want people to make the character they want to play. I don't mind life path random tables however I would never require them. You can use them for inspiration if you like, or randomly roll everything if you like but as a PLAYER I hate random stat generation. If I'm in the mood to play the Paladin, I want to create a Paladin, not toss the dice over 10 campaigns and hope I get a Paladin. I tend to GM with an eye on the players, so I don't push things I don't personally enjoy. It also makes things go faster. Once the player rolls up a crappy stat array you're just going to have to quibble to get them to play something they don't want. "How fast can I get this character killed?" comes up often during my traditional character generation sessions (as recently as a month ago in the C&C game). I'm just doing this to have fun, so less haggling and hang-wringing = more fun for me.

Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).

I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).

The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements. I can play either way, though. Just observing.

Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.

I strongly prefer random point buy.

No, really:

d6 Score Array
1 18, 14, 12, 8, 8, 6
2 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8
3 16, 16, 12, 10, 8, 8
4 16, 12, 12, 12, 10, 8
5 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12
6 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10

Or this yin-yang method I devised here.

In short: get an old school character sheet, roll 3d6 for Intelligence, calculate Strength, roll 3d6 for Dexterity, and so on, and you get a viable, balanced character very fast.

If you don't like subtracting, use this to find the value of the second ability in each pair:

First Ability   Second   

18   3   

17   4   

16   5   

15   6   

14   7   

13   8   

12   9   

11   10   

10   11   

9   12   

8   13   

7   14   

6   15   

5   16   

4   17   

3   18   




Or this one, if you prefer something closer to 4d6 drop lowest (the sum is 24, and the lowest ability is 6; if you roll 5 or lower, roll again):

First Ability   Second   

18   6   

17   7   

16   8   

15   9   

14   10   

13   11   

12   12   

11   13   

10   14   

9   15   

8   16   

7   17   

6   18   

5   roll again*   

4   roll again*   

3   roll again*   


* Alternatively, results from 3 to 5 in the first roll would break the mold to create a Monk, Dexterity Ranger, or some other special class.

Works greatly for AD&D.

The idea is keeping things random but balanced at the same time.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;9541661e AD&D did not recommend 3d6 in order, but thank you for the knee-jerk edition bash, fuckwit.

.......which wasn't what he said anyway. So what are you huffing and puffing about?

Quote from: cranebump;954263Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).

He also used the term 'forced', which again, implies that he disproves of any other method of character creation.  Well, other editions in general.

Quote from: cranebump;954263I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).

Those were not deemed worth the roll investiture.  Again, anecdote.  Although we were breaking the rules anyway, because we let people assign the stats as they liked.  Also, this was assuming you could get past 1st level, which was no guarantee.  Also, you're forgetting the restrictions, like one (I think, might be misremembering this, was it just one?  Maybe a couple more) magic weapon, one magic suit of armour...  A shield and I think...  2-3 more magic items that don't fit the above?  And then there's the forcing the DM to monitor alignment closely...

Too much hassle to for too little gain (after all, you get to lay on hands for what?  1 or 2 HP per class level.  I know that you turned undead as a cleric two levels lower.  Oh, and the mount at fourth, which if you're doing mostly Dungeon crawls meant very little use.)

I remember once we had nothing but a party of Fighting types, two Fighters, a Dwarf and a Halfling because the random rolls fit those classes best (This was a Rules Cyclopedia game, not too long ago.)  We didn't last beyond the first room in the Caves of Chaos.  We tried sneaking past the sleeping Ogre.  That worked about as well as you might guess.

Quote from: cranebump;954263The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements.

Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.

The mandatory high score thing was a 3 and 4e bugbear, mostly.  But who doesn't want to able to do decent with their class of choice?  Also, when you're stats actively penalize you all because the little random number generators decided 2's and 1's, with a smattering of 3's from time to time, it can be annoying.  And I don't know about any one else, but if I'm going to play or run a game, I fully intend on having fun, with my friends.

What I was getting at is that the mod spread in 3 through 5E sorta mandates higher scores. In ye olden times, 18 was rare. It's a given in 5E that you'll reach 20 in your preferred stat, unless you skip the bumps. I would agree there is more of a need for high scores in 3,4,5E. I would disagree that scores make the game more fun, but fun is relative. I'd rather play my character, than jack off to my stat sheet (er, whoops...did that slip out?).

Paladin abilities: continuous protection from evil field, detect evil within 60' by concentrating, lay hands, holy sword, loyal mount, some turn undead, spells. That's not too shabby. They have restrictions, but the restrIcyions make sense, imho.

I think it boils down to whether you interpret modern stat bloat as "everyone is special," or "if everyone is special, no one is."

(I'm lucky--never had any player get jealous over someone else's stats. Need a poll maybe: how much do you give a shit about stats?)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;954179I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class.

"Here or lower the character can only be a Fighter" Note on the Intelligence table. IIRC in that edition Fighters were the only class without minimum attribute scores.

Quote from: cranebump;954263Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).

I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).

The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements. I can play either way, though. Just observing.

Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.

If you use a roll under stat for out of combat stuff you make stats directly relevant again, as opposed to trying to hit DCs

Quote from: Eric Diaz;954265I strongly prefer random point buy.
Or this one, if you prefer something closer to 4d6 drop lowest (the sum is 24, and the lowest ability is 6; if you roll 5 or lower, roll again):

First Ability   Second   

18   6   

17   7   

16   8   

15   9   

14   10   

13   11   

12   12   

11   13   

10   14   

9   15   

8   16   

7   17   

6   18   

5   roll again*   

4   roll again*   

3   roll again*   


* Alternatively, results from 3 to 5 in the first roll would break the mold to create a Monk, Dexterity Ranger, or some other special class.[/I]

Works greatly for AD&D.

The idea is keeping things random but balanced at the same time.

I like this one

Quote from: Psikerlord;954275If you use a roll under stat for out of combat stuff you make stats directly relevant again, as opposed to trying to hit DCs

True, but I'm aiming for uniformity in resolution (high =good, low=bad). Just a preference. I think adding stat to d20 with target of 20 is essentially the same effect though, right?