Methods of Rolling Ability Scores

[tdenmark]

I like inventing new ways of rolling ability scores. And judging by the DM's Guide and Unearthed Arcana so did Gary. Ultimately my favorite method is 3d6 in order, no altering. However, today it struck me to add one option to that: swap any 2. This gives just a bit of autonomy to the player to create the character he or she wants, while maintaining the rigidness of 3d6 in order.

This thought led me to wondering if it would be possible to boil all the methods of rolling scores down to their essence. And then I wrote this up:

A. Roll them:
1. Roll in order.
2. Choose where to put them.

B. Roll:
1. 3d6.
2. 4d6, drop lowest.
3. Standard array, choose a set and place them. No rolling.
4. Point buy. No rolling.

C. Alter:
1. No altering (you get what you get).
2. Swap any 2 rolls (ie. a high CHR for a low CON).
3. Subtract 2 from one to add 1 to another.


Standard Arrays
“Hero:” 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16
“Generalist:” 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
“Specialist:” 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17

Point Buy
All ability scores start at 8, you get X points to add where you want them. Max 18 in any 1.
Low Power Level: X = 6
Mid Power Level: X = 12
High Power Level: X = 18

What are your thoughts on methods of rolling ability scores?

[geoffrey]

By far and away my favorite method is 3D6 IN ORDER SET IN STONE. No swapping, no lowering one to increase another, no adjustments for age or race, no nothing. What you roll is what you get.

I am OK with 3d6 arrange to taste (as Castles & Crusades does it), or switching any two scores, or some such thing. These methods increase one's ability to customize the character without in the least inflating or distorting the six scores.

But any method that inflates or distorts scores (such as the popular 4d6 drop lowest)? Anathema! Abomination! Heresy! Capital crime! I hate and loathe inflated or distorted ability scores.

[geoffrey]

Mar 4, 2024 15:58:16 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

A. Roll them:
1. Roll in order.
2. Choose where to put them.

B. Roll:
1. 3d6.
2. 4d6, drop lowest.
3. Standard array, choose a set and place them. No rolling.
4. Point buy. No rolling.

C. Alter:
1. No altering (you get what you get).
2. Swap any 2 rolls (ie. a high CHR for a low CON).
3. Subtract 2 from one to add 1 to another.

So...

A1: the best
A2: not bad

B1: the best
B2: NO!
B3: NO!
B4: NO!

C1: the best
C2: not bad
C3: NO!

[Finarvyn]

Mar 4, 2024 15:58:16 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Point Buy
All ability scores start at 8, you get X points to add where you want them. Max 18 in any 1.
Low Power Level: X = 6
Mid Power Level: X = 12
High Power Level: X = 18

I've put a lot of thought into point buy, as my players like it best, but haven't come up with a final answer in my mind. I think rather than start at 8 I would be tempted to start at 6 or lower. I feel like that has a more "old school" feel to it. Each time one adds in another plus, there should be a point bump.

Take the B/X scale, for example:
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-12 = +0
13-15 = +1
16-17 = +2
18 = +3

So the points might look like this:
3 = 0 pts
4 = 2 pts
5 = 3 pts
6 = 5 pts
7 = 6 pts
8 = 7 pts
9 = 9 pts
10 = 10 pts
11 = 11 pts
12 = 12 pts
13 = 14 pts
14 = 15 pts
15 = 16 pts
16 = 18 pts
17 = 19 pts
18 = 21 pts

3d6 yields an average of 10.5, so assume half 10's and half 11's. That would give 63 points to spend on 6 stats. Seems like awesome stats are pretty expensive, but maybe that's a good thing.

[tdenmark]

Mar 4, 2024 16:39:31 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

By far and away my favorite method is 3D6 IN ORDER SET IN STONE. No swapping, no lowering one to increase another, no adjustments for age or race, no nothing. What you roll is what you get.

I am OK with 3d6 arrange to taste (as Castles & Crusades does it), or switching any two scores, or some such thing. These methods increase one's ability to customize the character without in the least inflating or distorting the six scores.

But any method that inflates or distorts scores (such as the popular 4d6 drop lowest)? Anathema! Abomination! Heresy! Capital crime! I hate and loathe inflated or distorted ability scores.

Agreed. 3d6 in order with no changes consistently creates the best characters. Not the most powerful. The best. Players may complain and be sad when they roll a "bad" character, but the game is so much more fun for everyone with this method.

[hamurai]

I'd say it depends on how you play and what your players like.

If you use "skill rolls" with a d20 to roll below your score, 3d6 in order is far less fun because your "specialists" might just suck at their field of expertise. MU with INT 9, for example, won't be much of a scholar. Sure, some players like the idea of "failed careers", but others don't. They want to shine in their specialty.

Yes, you can certainly play any class with any score and when playing RAW they hardly matter at all. Then, 3d6 in order is perfectly fine and the method I prefer.

I also like the Warhammer FRP 4E approach:
Roll your stats. You keep them as rolled, gain 50 XP (that's half a talent's cost, which is really nice)
If you swap 2 scores, gain 25 XP.
If you arrange them as you wish, gain no XP.

That way, lucky players might get their dream character and XP, but I've noticed it's hardly the case. Most of our players used method 2 simply because they wanted to play a certain kind of character and make sure they're up for it. I have to add, though, that the scores are really important in WHFRP as they're the base % chance to succeed.

[tdenmark]

Mar 4, 2024 23:58:45 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I'd say it depends on how you play and what your players like.

If you use "skill rolls" with a d20 to roll below your score, 3d6 in order is far less fun because your "specialists" might just suck at their field of expertise. MU with INT 9, for example, won't be much of a scholar. Sure, some players like the idea of "failed careers", but others don't. They want to shine in their specialty.

If you roll a 9 INT, don't pick Magic-User as your class.

Also, I think the caveat here is we are talking about Original D&D, as in the Men & Magic book.

Once we move beyond OD&D into AD&D and on, then other methods are more suitable.

[tombowings]

I like characters with exactly one high score. Therefore, I've started to use the following method:

A. Roll 3d6 in order.
B. If you play a human, increase your highest score to 15 if it isn't already 15 or higher.

[rayotus]

I'm running at Oe at Gary Con and decided on the following, related to rolling ability scores.

1. The GM rolls them. (Not the way I would normally do it at the table, but that's what the book says.)
2. 3d6 down the line. With all ancillary stats calculated to speed things up.
3. Supply each player with four pre-rolled stat blocks. They pick one for the starting character. The others are for "backups" and henchmen as needed.

In practice it looks like four index cards, each with a random letter in the upper left corner. (They must use this letter to start the name of their character, thus indicating which stat block is used. The letters don't/can't repeat in a single set of 4 by Excel formula.) The rest is stats, modifiers, XP bonuses per class choice, sys shock, max hirelings, level 1 hp, etc. Basically they transcribe the numbers into a character sheet and make their choice of class.

[geoffrey]

Mar 5, 2024 1:52:56 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Once we move beyond OD&D into AD&D and on, then other methods are more suitable.

I still use 3D6 IN ORDER SET IN STONE for AD&D. (I should note that, as in OD&D, I rule that none of the four main classes or any of the player races have ability score minimums.)

But the other classes in the Players Handbook (druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, assassin, monk, bard) all have the ability score minimums listed in the book:

bard: S 15; I 12; W 15; C 10; D 15; Ch 15 (1 in 58,029 chance of rolling 3d6 in order)
monk: S 15; I 6; W 15; C 11; D 15; Ch 6 (1 in 2,769 chance)
paladin: S 12; I 9; W 13; C 9; D 6; Ch 17 (1 in 1,062 chance)
ranger: S 13; I 13; W 14; C 14; D 6; Ch 6 (1 in 623 chance)
illusionist: S 6; I 15; W 6; C 3; D 16; Ch 6 (1 in 269 chance)
druid: S 6; I 6; W 12; C 6; D 6; Ch 15 (1 in 35 chance)
assassin: S 12; I 11; W 6; C 6; D 12; Ch 3 (1 in 16 chance)

If your character's ability scores are not high enough, then you may not play the class. This is liberal, as Gary noted that all seven of these classes are optional. The illiberal DM would simply ban all seven of them!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There are no exceptions to this method, not even for the DM. As the Judge, I place clerics, fighting-men, magic-users, and thieves with gay abandon. But the other seven classes? If I do not roll them using this method, then I do not have them in my campaign world. Thus far I have rolled assassins, druids, illusionists, and a ranger or two. I have yet to roll a paladin, monk, or bard. Therefore, none of those three character classes has entered the campaign (yet). I roll 3d6 in order for each NPC, and then I go down the list, in order: Can he be a bard? No? All right, then how about a monk? No? Then how about a paladin? No? Etc. I make the character be the class that was least likely to be rolled. If the character is not qualified to be any of the seven, then I will assign him one of the basic character classes according to my whim.

I like the results of this method. It utterly avoids ability score inflation, and it ensures that the sub-classes (and, even more so, monks and bards) are suitably rare--both as PCs and as NPCs. I like these seven classes, but only as seasoning. The four basic classes are the meat and potatoes of the world.

[I should note that I play a mish-mash of OD&D and AD&D, picking and choosing according to whim. All of the little brown (and white!) books are on the table, as is Holmes, as are the first seven AD&D hardbacks (though I pick and choose only sparingly from DDG, MMII, and UA). Is it original? Is it advanced? I don't know, but I do know that it is Gygaxian. Therefore, I play GYGAXIAN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. ]

[Falconer]

Roll in order. 4d6-lowest. No altering. Roll up as many characters as you like.

[asaki]

To me, I think a big takeaway with the "roll in order", by-the-book method is that it doesn't say you have to use that character. I assume it's more like what DCC ran with, where you'd roll up a handful of characters, pick the best one, hope to make a level up, and save the rest for later (or maybe for NPCs/henchmen/etc).

[hamurai]

Mar 5, 2024 1:52:56 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Mar 4, 2024 23:58:45 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I'd say it depends on how you play and what your players like.

If you use "skill rolls" with a d20 to roll below your score, 3d6 in order is far less fun because your "specialists" might just suck at their field of expertise. MU with INT 9, for example, won't be much of a scholar. Sure, some players like the idea of "failed careers", but others don't. They want to shine in their specialty.

If you roll a 9 INT, don't pick Magic-User as your class.

Also, I think the caveat here is we are talking about Original D&D, as in the Men & Magic book.

Once we move beyond OD&D into AD&D and on, then other methods are more suitable.

I mention this example because it was our first one-shot at OD&D and it stuck in my head. Every one of the six players rolled low at INT and 9 was the best score. One of the players really wanted to play a MU and his character had INT 9, so there you go. 

Personally, I know these things happen and you get characters with bad scores. But it's not so easy to sell OD&D to a group of young(er) newbies when these things happen.

In the end, the player did play the MU with INT 9, though. As I've explained in some other thread, INT is more like Traveller's EDU to me. Education and learning, not IQ. So we ended up explaining the MU as a natural talent who didn't have to study hard as most others do, but who was gifted with a natural understanding of magic.

This led to the background of part elven heritage, which was a nice touch to the character.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 5, 2024 23:12:46 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I mention this example because it was our first one-shot at OD&D and it stuck in my head. Every one of the six players rolled low at INT and 9 was the best score. One of the players really wanted to play a MU and his character had INT 9, so there you go. Personally, I know these things happen and you get characters with bad scores. But it's not so easy to sell OD&D to a group of young(er) newbies when these things happen.

One option is go without ability scores entirely. It works perfectly fine for OD&D, saves a bunch of time, and avoids above disappointment.

Mar 5, 2024 23:12:46 GMT -6 hamurai said:

So we ended up explaining the MU as a natural talent who didn't have to study hard as most others do, but who was gifted with a natural understanding of magic. This led to the background of part elven heritage, which was a nice touch to the character.

BAM! That is, IMHO, exactly what OD&D ability scores are for: a tool to help explain/describe your PC.

If it was still there, I would push the exalt button for that

[howandwhy99]

3d6 in order is preferred. It stops the game of character optimization -before- the actual game begins. Which requires such thinking during play.

But I do agree with the minmaxing rule to qualify for subclasses. It's simply to rare otherwise.

3d6 also only works for OD&D and some of its derivations. AD&D is expecting the powered up, place as desired 4d6 roll. Or far more.

[geoffrey]

The first published D&D character, found on page 10 of the original 1974 D&D rules:

Xylarthen the Medium
Strength: 6
Intelligence: 11
Wisdom: 13
Constitution: 12
Dexterity: 9
Charisma: 8

Now that is a cool character. One notices that the six scores total only 59--below the average total of 63. No score is awesome, and one is pretty terrible. Xylarthen is so much more interesting than the all-too-common:

Lamer the Cheat
STR: 18/91
INT: 13
WIS: 14
DEX: 16
CON: 17
CHA: 13

[geoffrey]

I must register my strong yet cordial disagreement with the notion that 3d6-in-order somehow isn't appropriate for AD&D.

Supplement I: GREYHAWK contains tables showing bonuses and penalties for the various ability scores. AD&D pushes this further for clerics and wisdom and for thieves and dexterity, but otherwise we're looking at insignificant differences of detail between the two books. Besides, all the cool advantages one gets for having high ability scores in AD&D are not and should not be expectations! In other words, it would be absurd for a player to have the attitude of, "Well, if my character doesn't get these advantages, then my character isn't worth playing." No!

The advantages for having high ability scores are cool precisely because they are hard to roll. What is cheaply had is cheaply held. But if a player is lucky enough to roll one or more ability scores high enough to thereby have bonuses, then that is something treasured precisely because of its rarity.

Also let us remember that AD&D clerics, fighting-men, and thieves all get an average of 1 h.p. more per level than do OD&D clerics, fighting-men, and thieves. Not to mention that 1st-level AD&D clerics get a spell, whereas 1st-level OD&D clerics simply have to grit their teeth and struggle through to 2nd level. One could argue that AD&D is OD&D's "easy mode".

3d6-in-order gives a player the chance for elation in character generation. The various fudging methods replace this with expectations of entitlements, with the assumption that significantly-better-than-average is the baseline (and therefore still pretty disappointing unless the PC has something like a couple of 18s and no score in the single digits). In my mind, it is eager and vigorous character generation vs. bored and jaded and resentful character creation.

Make mine 3d6 in order!

[asaki]

Mar 6, 2024 5:10:17 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

3d6 also only works for OD&D and some of its derivations. AD&D is expecting the powered up, place as desired 4d6 roll. Or far more.

I don't know, we did 3d6 in order for AD&D 2E and nothing bad happened. Pretty sure it's even listed in the book as one of the options.

[sixdemonbag]

The increasing importance of ability scores over time was and is a mistake. Certainly not unique to D&D, either.

[hamurai]

Mar 5, 2024 23:25:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 5, 2024 23:12:46 GMT -6 hamurai said:

So we ended up explaining the MU as a natural talent who didn't have to study hard as most others do, but who was gifted with a natural understanding of magic. This led to the background of part elven heritage, which was a nice touch to the character.

BAM! That is, IMHO, exactly what OD&D ability scores are for: a tool to help explain/describe your PC.

If it was still there, I would push the exalt button for that

Exactly why I like the ability scores, and don't give much about them in-game as a DM. I care more about what the players can tell me about their background and class. But today's players sometimes need a lot of time to get that as they're used to stat maxing and HP bloat and whatnot.

[Fearghus]

I 100% agree with sixdemonbag.

OD&D seemed to have something unique in that the 3-18 did not really assess the range of a total population. It was the range of those fit to adventure. A 3 strength is not a feeble old man or a small child. Those two examples I wouldn't even bother to provide stats. The 3 str fighter just lacks physical talent, but can still attain significant capabilities if they put the time in. Like a baseball player struggling through the minor leagues, or someone joining the military and struggling through the physical portion, they can still do all of the "things".

In AD&D, a 3 str is something significantly different than a 3 str in OD&D. Same with the other abilities. That is fine so long as that is the type of you game you and your players are into. I don't like inflated ability scores in a level-based game like D&D.

Not to say that my character needs to be one of the Avengers that just wins all the time because mom said I am special and I deserve it. On the flip side, dealing with stupidity and uselessness most days, I don't want my limited fantasy time to be spent being pretending to be stupid and useless. 5,4,4,7,9,8 was my last AD&D2e character from about 30 years ago. It is burned in my memory. OMG all of the unique RP opportunities!!11!

Anyway, looking forward to getting wrecked old school style this weekend and next.

[blackwyvern]

Using only the original box set with the modifiers specified on M&M pg 11, 3d6 in order is great. I would say not so much once you add Greyhawk. Abilities start having a major effect on how effective a character is. It is all fine and good to say if you have a 9 Int don't be a magic-user, but if there are three players at the table and the character with the 9 is the best of the bunch, he is probably the magic-user.

My preference currently is to take this passage from page 11 M&M to heart, "(Low score is 3-8; Average is 9-12; High is 13-18)". High is +1. Low is -1. I apply the mods all over the place, where I deem appropriate. With that and small players groups I prefer 3d6 arrange to taste.

[geoffrey]

Mar 16, 2024 10:51:12 GMT -6 Fearghus said:

OD&D seemed to have something unique in that the 3-18 did not really assess the range of a total population. It was the range of those fit to adventure. A 3 strength is not a feeble old man or a small child. Those two examples I wouldn't even bother to provide stats. The 3 str fighter just lacks physical talent, but can still attain significant capabilities if they put the time in. Like a baseball player struggling through the minor leagues, or someone joining the military and struggling through the physical portion, they can still do all of the "things".

Yep. That veteran with a 3 strength can rise to become a lord with a 3 strength.

[Malcadon]

My method is:
• Roll 4d6 (dropping the lowest) seven (7) times;
• Distribute scores freely to the six (6) Abilities;
• Remainder (usually the lowest) goes to starting funds (times ten).

Basically I streamlined the process by adding the starting fund roll to the ability roll. I like to make the score average higher than normal for the sake of more heroic, pulp-like characters. I give players more freedom to crate optimized characters, as none of my players want to be stuck playing one type of character due to the order at which the dice fell.

(I have been considering retooling the seventh roll for extra perks—high social status, magical family heirloom, the ability to play non-human characters in a human-centric setting, play an exotic/power class, etc.—to make prioritizing this deliberate dumpstat roll more enticing, and that I'm also been moving towards using standard equipment packages in order to remove the biggest bottleneck in character creation. Although, such a thing, when fully realized, would make worthy topic of its own thread.)

[verhaden]

Whatever my players want.

I prefer 3d6 seven times arranged to taste (includes 3d6 starting gold as an "attribute").

[Zenopus]

Last night while half-asleep I imagined using all d4s to generate scores.

5d4 would be fun, with an average of 12.5, but you'd have to figure out what to do with 19 and 20 (treat as 18? ignore and re-roll? re-roll with a bonus or minimum?)

4d4+2 would give a range of 6-18 and an average of 12 ((2.5*4)+2)


How about class hit-die based primes?

Magic-users use 4d4+2 for Int (6-18, average 12)
Clerics use 2d6+6 for Wis (8-18, average 13)
Fighter use 2d8+2 for Strength (4-18, average 11)

Kind of pointless but interesting thought experiment

[blackwyvern]

Mar 16, 2024 19:29:51 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Mar 16, 2024 10:51:12 GMT -6 Fearghus said:

OD&D seemed to have something unique in that the 3-18 did not really assess the range of a total population. It was the range of those fit to adventure. A 3 strength is not a feeble old man or a small child. Those two examples I wouldn't even bother to provide stats. The 3 str fighter just lacks physical talent, but can still attain significant capabilities if they put the time in. Like a baseball player struggling through the minor leagues, or someone joining the military and struggling through the physical portion, they can still do all of the "things".

Yep. That veteran with a 3 strength can rise to become a lord with a 3 strength.

It could have been interesting had the descriptor actually went with this. 3-8 Average Joe, 9-12 Gifted, 13-18 Legendary. Though having low scores is a good deal of the fun. Whiners are gonna whine.

Mar 17, 2024 8:35:53 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

4d4+2 would give a range of 6-18 and an average of 12 ((2.5*4)+2)

I have used 4d4+2 for the '81 edition of D&D. While the range is comparable the high peak in the probability curve tends to produce a lot of sameness. Which was actually what I was after at the time. It proved to be rather boring. Lots of +0 and +1 range stats and little else. I could have just told the players, "Give yourself 3 +1s, 2 +0s and roll a d6 1-3 = -1, 4-6 = +2." Actually probably more roll a d8: 1-2 = -1, 3-4 = +0, 5-6 = +1, 7-8 = +2. We had very few scores that didn't produce +0 or +1. 

[vindigator]

What if the rules were written clearly without any ambiguity? Then we wouldn’t have these fun discussions.

Rearranging the wording on M&M page 10, “…it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities…” could be clarified as “…in order to rate each as to various abilities, it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice …” or “…to rate each as to various abilities, it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order …”

And I have never seen a referee roll abilities unless handing out pregenerated characters. I like to go with just rolling and assigning where the scores go.

[tdenmark]

Mar 21, 2024 18:16:00 GMT -6 vindigator said:

What if the rules were written clearly without any ambiguity? Then we wouldn’t have these fun discussions.

Rearranging the wording on M&M page 10, “…it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities…” could be clarified as “…in order to rate each as to various abilities, it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice …” or “…to rate each as to various abilities, it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order …”

It's about as clear as mud, but I wouldn't change Gygaxian vernacular for anything.

Mar 21, 2024 18:16:00 GMT -6 vindigator said:

And I have never seen a referee roll abilities unless handing out pregenerated characters. I like to go with just rolling and assigning where the scores go.

The Referee should always roll, or at least witness the rolls.

"Honest Dungeon Master, I rolled all 18's! You should have been there, it was amazing!"

[sixdemonbag]

Even if you remove the "in order" prepositional phrase, there is still plenty of ambiguity to enjoy.

In practice, I let players decide, including letting them just choose whatever scores they want. It doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.