|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 1, 2022 4:32:15 GMT -6
I have used this method for NPCs, but I haven't done it for PCs. Has anyone else done this? Down the line or allocate as desired?
This video reminded me of the method:
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 1, 2022 5:00:02 GMT -6
Could work. I still prefer give players the option of a) 3d6 in order or b) choose whatever scores you want with no limitations whatsoever (what could include 2d6+6, should the player wish).
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Oct 1, 2022 5:47:16 GMT -6
Worked OK as an option for Arneson (reminder in case some haven't seen these): odd74.proboards.com/post/21228/thread and odd74.proboards.com/post/21226/thread. Haven't done it myself down the line, and only recently used it for one stat only, following Delta's rules, in coming up with a couple of the characters to run through The Solo Dungeon (Bartle, 1977). I'm still partial to 3d6 in order, then swap two if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Aralaen on Oct 1, 2022 6:59:08 GMT -6
I like this rule and have incorporated it into my house rules a while back. A decent range of 8-18, with an 12-13 median score.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Oct 1, 2022 12:40:07 GMT -6
2d6+6 sounds a bit like Basic Role-Playing. But I wasn't aware that Dave himself mentioned it, so thank you magremore for pointing this out. For important NPCs I sometimes roll 6 times 3d6 and arrange as desired. 4d6, drop lowest and arrange is also a good method.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 2, 2022 5:51:35 GMT -6
We've sometimes rolled 2d6+6 for the prime requisite if the player wanted to play a specific class.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 2, 2022 7:47:16 GMT -6
We've sometimes rolled 2d6+6 for the prime requisite if the player wanted to play a specific class. I hated point-buy when I first heard about it, but over time have embraced this for the reason you stated. I have players who come to the table with a pre-determined idea of what they want to run, and any method that allows them to do this is a plus. I'm sure I heard of 2d6+6 years ago but I have no idea of the context, and I can't recall ever using it, but it does accomplish its purpose of creating above-average stats so it's a fine way to play.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 3, 2022 0:17:36 GMT -6
Indeed! Those players, in my experience, often come from newer editions and are used to the power-creep. They're often put off by rolling bad stats, some because they believe the game-mechanical impact will be too big to play a successful character. I've had someone roll a character with INT 6 and they played the character like a complete idiot. The player believed that a score of 6 was an incredibly bad score. Well, it's not great, of course, but as I've stated before, in my games INT is more a measure of education than of intelligence. Apart from those players, as you said, many players already have an idea of what kind of character they want to play. It's no fun to deny them their wish. Being too hard on those players would just put them off from the old editions, I think. And we'd rather lure them in ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Oct 3, 2022 9:32:27 GMT -6
Cool idea, I will have to jot it down =)
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Oct 7, 2022 12:32:33 GMT -6
Stats don't really mean that much in the long run, so why not?
|
|
naiyor
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 24
|
Post by naiyor on Oct 16, 2022 8:02:07 GMT -6
I never really thought of doing it this way...may basic options were 3d6 straight down or 4d6-drop lowest and arrange as desired ALSO sometimes I would let the player re-roll ONE roll...just in case something was super terrible.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Oct 17, 2022 1:11:25 GMT -6
Stats don't really mean that much in the long run, so why not? Don't they? I'd say that prime requisite is crucial for character's advancement. Constitution (withstand/survival/raise dead - in the long run you sooner or later would be killed and/or petrified), intelligence (languages known - basis for diplomacy) and charisma (reaction & loyalty - a guy with CHA 4 can have only 1 hireling) are very important as well.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Oct 17, 2022 6:28:02 GMT -6
It's just my opinion, but I have found an extra 10% doesn't really make that much difference, and that any mechanical advantage you may get from stats is much less impactful than just playing intelligently
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Oct 18, 2022 7:11:06 GMT -6
It a neat array. I need to see that math on this... Roll
| Score
| Bell Curve
| B/X
| 3e+
| 2
| 8
| █
| -1
| -1
| 3
| 9
| █ █
| 0
| -1
| 4
| 10
| █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 5
| 11
| █ █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 6
| 12
| █ █ █ █ █
| 0
| +1
| 7
| 13
| █ █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +1
| 8
| 14
| █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 9
| 15
| █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 10
| 16
| █ █ █
| +2
| +3
| 11
| 17
| █ █
| +2
| +3
| 12
| 18
| █
| +3
| +4
|
Nice. A range from 8-to-18, bias towards 13.
Perfect for larger-than-life characters, if used for all scores, or can be used selectively for certain race/class options, like rolling Constitution for a Dwarf with everything else rolled with 3d6.
|
|
naiyor
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 24
|
Post by naiyor on Oct 18, 2022 9:10:16 GMT -6
"Perfect for larger-than-life characters, if used for all scores, or can be used selectively for certain race/class options, like rolling Constitution for a Dwarf with everything else rolled with 3d6." -- I love the idea of using specifically for certain situations...Dwarves are a good example, maybe use them for Dex with Halflings/elves?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 18, 2022 11:41:55 GMT -6
This could also be called "roll 3d6, replace lowest with 6". This sticks closer to the original terminology, and thus seems like less of a departure. It could also be implemented for one ability score, e.g. prime requisite, as suggested above, while keeping 3d6 for the others. In which case it's just 3d6-in-order with one die roll replaced with a 6. * * * I included 2d6+6 in order (no further adjustments allowed) as the Arnesonian option for human characters in my Holmes Basic Ability Score Reference Sheet. zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2020/04/holmes-ref-rolling-up-adventurer.html
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Oct 18, 2022 23:14:30 GMT -6
This could also be called "roll 3d6, replace lowest with 6". This sticks closer to the original terminology, and thus seems like less of a departure. It could also be implemented for one ability score, e.g. prime requisite, as suggested above, while keeping 3d6 for the others. In which case it's just 3d6-in-order with one die roll replaced with a 6. * * * I included 2d6+6 in order (no further adjustments allowed) as the Arnesonian option for human characters in my Holmes Basic Ability Score Reference Sheet. zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2020/04/holmes-ref-rolling-up-adventurer.htmlI would note that "roll 3d6, replace lowest with 6" is not statistically interchangeable with 2d6+6, it's actually quite a bit more generous. 2d6+6 has an expected value of 13, minimum of 8 and maximum of 18 3d6, replace lowest with 6 has the same minimum and maximum, but the average result is 14.46 - maybe a good method to use if you want to create AD&D monks, cavaliers, and barbarians without resorting to rolling buckets full of dice for the Unearthed Arcana rolling method.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Nov 9, 2022 18:17:59 GMT -6
Have been using 2d6+6 in order for my Palace fo the Vampire Queen campaign and like it. You can't get a terrible roll, yet with OD&D and Greyhawk ability score modifiers the way they are it doesn't cause OP characters.
Players had the option of using 3d6 seven times and keep the six best rolls that could be placed in any order if they had a class in mind from the start.
Both methods allowed point trading per M&M.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 10, 2022 18:18:54 GMT -6
It's just my opinion, but I have found an extra 10% doesn't really make that much difference, and that any mechanical advantage you may get from stats is much less impactful than just playing intelligently Agreed. In a d20-based system, +1 modifier is fiddly. Too much consideration for little return on investment. I modify the 2d6 Man-to-Man approach by using 1d12. Makes the modifier a bit more meaningful. What about this? To get closer to the impact modifiers have with a 2d6 Man-to-Man approach ... +1 modifier = +3 +2 modifier = +5 +3 modifier = +6 (or +7) That would replicate the impact of the given modifiers on a 1d20 scale.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Nov 17, 2022 11:54:17 GMT -6
It's just my opinion, but I have found an extra 10% doesn't really make that much difference, and that any mechanical advantage you may get from stats is much less impactful than just playing intelligently Agreed. In a d20-based system, +1 modifier is fiddly. Too much consideration for little return on investment. What about +4 for Charisma 18? 2d6+4 for reaction is a huge bonus (in fact, +2 is also very high) ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I'd say 10% extra, or just not having -20% penalty, is a real thing. Same for withstand/survival chance. You may play intelligently as hell, but you can always be petrified and die in a process, if surprised by some nasty medusa, right? But hey, it's just my opinion. Recently I've dropped the stats whatsoever and still had a darn good game
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 17, 2022 20:57:51 GMT -6
Agreed. In a d20-based system, +1 modifier is fiddly. Too much consideration for little return on investment. What about +4 for Charisma 18? 2d6+4 for reaction is a huge bonus (in fact, +2 is also very high) ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Very true, and a reason I mentioned the 1d20 scale. Btw, that +4 comes around only about once in 200 instances.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 18, 2022 5:31:10 GMT -6
To get closer to the impact modifiers have with a 2d6 Man-to-Man approach ... +1 modifier = +3 +2 modifier = +5 +3 modifier = +6 (or +7) That would replicate the impact of the given modifiers on a 1d20 scale. How so?
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 18, 2022 9:27:03 GMT -6
To get closer to the impact modifiers have with a 2d6 Man-to-Man approach ... +1 modifier = +3 +2 modifier = +5 +3 modifier = +6 (or +7) That would replicate the impact of the given modifiers on a 1d20 scale. How so? +1 on d20 linear = +5% +1 on 2d6 bellcurve could be +14 to 17%, with diminishing returns as bonuses increase substitute the above modifiers when using d20 to replicate the 2d6 modifiers
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 18, 2022 15:45:12 GMT -6
+1 on 2d6 bellcurve could be +14 to 17%, with diminishing returns as bonuses increase Not sure how you get 14-17%. My spreadsheet full of numbers has this:
The right-most three columns show the % advantage of 2d6+1, 2d6+2, and 2d6+3 compared to 2d6, respectively.
Then, down in the bottom right corner, it has the mean % advantage (over the range of target numbers 2-12), and also these mean % advantages converted to a number of d20 pips.
Although my basic rule of thumb is to double d20 adjustments for 2d6 tables, if the above numbers are right then +1, +2, +3 on a 2d6 scale is nearer to +2, +3, +5 on a d20 scale.
So, not quite double. But doubling 2d6 adjustments is still easier to remember and apply, and near enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Nov 18, 2022 16:02:28 GMT -6
+1 on 2d6 bellcurve could be +14 to 17%, with diminishing returns as bonuses increase Not sure how you get 14-17%. My spreadsheet full of numbers has this:
The right-most three columns show the % advantage of 2d6+1, 2d6+2, and 2d6+3 compared to 2d6, respectively.
Then, down in the bottom right corner, it has the mean % advantage (over the range of target numbers 2-12), and also these mean % advantages converted to a number of d20 pips.
Although my basic rule of thumb is to double d20 adjustments for 2d6 tables, if the above numbers are right then +1, +2, +3 on a 2d6 scale is nearer to +2, +3, +5 on a d20 scale.
So, not quite double. But doubling 2d6 adjustments is still easier to remember and apply, and near enough for me. Yes, your chart is comprehensive. Mine was a swag. Notice your 7 and 8 result. 14-17%, as I noted, for +1. That's a +3, about 15% I'll stick to missile fire only, because in RAW D&D, there's no 1d20 modifier based on an ability score except for the possibility of missile fire, and it's max +1. Let's then say one wants to use 2d6 resolution, per CHAINMAIL. The median value (in toto) for all numbers on the Individual Fires with Missiles is a 7.5. (Again, swag.) So again, 7 and 8 results. That's about the place where play is going to be. So again you're looking at 14-17%. Now add to-hit bonuses from magic items. Looking at your chart, that's 25-30 for +2 (+5 to +6 on d20) and 33-42 for +3 (+6/+7 to +8/+9). Watch out for those 1-in-4 characters with Dex 13+ with a +3 bow.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 19, 2022 12:24:59 GMT -6
It a neat array. I need to see that math on this... Roll
| Score
| Bell Curve
| B/X
| 3e+
| 2
| 8
| █
| -1
| -1
| 3
| 9
| █ █
| 0
| -1
| 4
| 10
| █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 5
| 11
| █ █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 6
| 12
| █ █ █ █ █
| 0
| +1
| 7
| 13
| █ █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +1
| 8
| 14
| █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 9
| 15
| █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 10
| 16
| █ █ █
| +2
| +3
| 11
| 17
| █ █
| +2
| +3
| 12
| 18
| █
| +3
| +4
|
Nice. A range from 8-to-18, bias towards 13. Perfect for larger-than-life characters, if used for all scores, or can be used selectively for certain race/class options, like rolling Constitution for a Dwarf with everything else rolled with 3d6.
I'm a few days behind on this thread, so just saw this post today. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) When I saw your graphic the first thing that popped into my head is that 5E has a point-buy design such that the lowest score you can buy is an 8. So, the 8-18 range isn't quite the 8-15 within the point buy but isn't that different, either. So, in point-buy: For scores from 8 through 13, +1 to the stat means +1 point (e.g. 8 = 0 cost, 9 = 1 pt ... 13 = 5 pts) For scores 14 and 15, +1 to the stat means +2 points (e.g. 14 = 7 pts, 15 = 9 pts) However, bonuses in 5E come at the rate of +1 every other stat number (e.g. 8-9 is -1, 10-11 is +0, 12-13 is +1, etc.) What I am wondering: I wonder if there is any way to tie the frequency odds of the above 2d6+1 chart together with the bonus chart from 5E to arrive at a point buy cost which is more "authentic" to represent what the cost of each stat should be. In other words, if we assume an 8-18 "bell" shape (which it really isn't, as it's more triangular) combined with a sort-of-linear bonus chart (sort of stair-stepped as we get a bonus every other number) what would be the true cost and/or value of an 18? Or a 10? Or whatever. I'm decent with numbers but I'm not sure if I can work that out or not. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 19, 2022 13:10:53 GMT -6
What I am wondering: I wonder if there is any way to tie the frequency odds of the above 2d6+1 chart together with the bonus chart from 5E to arrive at a point buy cost which is more "authentic" to represent what the cost of each stat should be. In other words, if we assume an 8-18 "bell" shape (which it really isn't, as it's more triangular) combined with a sort-of-linear bonus chart (sort of stair-stepped as we get a bonus every other number) what would be the true cost and/or value of an 18? Or a 10? Or whatever. I'm decent with numbers but I'm not sure if I can work that out or not. Hmmmm. Something like this (a spontaneous idea which likely needs tweaking): All ability scores cost or grant points. In the end, you must get to 0. Score | Points | 8 | +4 | 9 | +3 | 10 | +3 | 11 | +2 | 12 | +2 | 13 | 0 | 14 | -4 | 15 | -5 | 16 | -6 | 17 | -7 | 18 | -8 |
It works with 5E's standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, a more focused character might have 18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Nov 19, 2022 13:36:52 GMT -6
It a neat array. I need to see that math on this... Roll
| Score
| Bell Curve
| B/X
| 3e+
| 2
| 8
| █
| -1
| -1
| 3
| 9
| █ █
| 0
| -1
| 4
| 10
| █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 5
| 11
| █ █ █ █
| 0
| 0
| 6
| 12
| █ █ █ █ █
| 0
| +1
| 7
| 13
| █ █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +1
| 8
| 14
| █ █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 9
| 15
| █ █ █ █
| +1
| +2
| 10
| 16
| █ █ █
| +2
| +3
| 11
| 17
| █ █
| +2
| +3
| 12
| 18
| █
| +3
| +4
|
Nice. A range from 8-to-18, bias towards 13. Perfect for larger-than-life characters, if used for all scores, or can be used selectively for certain race/class options, like rolling Constitution for a Dwarf with everything else rolled with 3d6.
I'm a few days behind on this thread, so just saw this post today. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) When I saw your graphic the first thing that popped into my head is that 5E has a point-buy design such that the lowest score you can buy is an 8. So, the 8-18 range isn't quite the 8-15 within the point buy but isn't that different, either. So, in point-buy: For scores from 8 through 13, +1 to the stat means +1 point (e.g. 8 = 0 cost, 9 = 1 pt ... 13 = 5 pts) For scores 14 and 15, +1 to the stat means +2 points (e.g. 14 = 7 pts, 15 = 9 pts) However, bonuses in 5E come at the rate of +1 every other stat number (e.g. 8-9 is -1, 10-11 is +0, 12-13 is +1, etc.) What I am wondering: I wonder if there is any way to tie the frequency odds of the above 2d6+1 chart together with the bonus chart from 5E to arrive at a point buy cost which is more "authentic" to represent what the cost of each stat should be. In other words, if we assume an 8-18 "bell" shape (which it really isn't, as it's more triangular) combined with a sort-of-linear bonus chart (sort of stair-stepped as we get a bonus every other number) what would be the true cost and/or value of an 18? Or a 10? Or whatever. I'm decent with numbers but I'm not sure if I can work that out or not. Hmmmm. The point buy systems for 3.5 and 4th allow you to buy up to 18 at character creation. 4E costs are nominally two points fewer than 5E for the same score because you start with 10/10/10/10/10/8 instead of 8 for every score, but you also receive fewer points to use. Taking this into account, the point costs from 8 to 15 are identical. Going from 15->16 is 2 points, then 16->17 is 3 points and 17->18 is 4 points. Thus bringing a 10 up to 18 costs a total of 16 points. The 3.5 costs are slightly lower; going 13->14 only costs 1 additional point for a total of 6, then it's 2 points each for 15 and 16, and 3 points each for 17 and 18, for a total of 16 points to bring the base 8 up to an 18 starting score. The common wisdom in 4E was that a few classes (wizards, for example) could select abilities in such a way that being a real one-trick pony stats-wise had few disadvantages, and in those cases it was potentially worth going for the 18 to start with. More commonly, classes could benefit greatly from a strong secondary ability score so you'd either go with 16/16/12/12/10/8 or 16/14/14/13/10/8 as your final set of scores, with minor variations possible for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites. If you were looking for something strictly based on the 2d6+6 distribution, the way to do it would be to start every score with a 13 and zero points to spend - the only way to afford buying up scores is to "sell down" points. The highest fidelity to the probabilities would of course be to require a 1-to-1 swap of points, so the only way to have an 18 is to also have a corresponding 8 in a different score. Assigning actual point values to each score is inherently less rigorous since it's largely a judgment call to assess "how much more valuable is a +4 bonus than a +3 bonus?" The other particular that you'd want to address if starting from 13s would be some sort of limit on buying up, assuming you don't want people to be able to do 18/18/18/8/8/8 for their scores. Maybe something like "the sum of your three highest bonuses must be +7 or less."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 19, 2022 17:09:24 GMT -6
So again, 7 and 8 results. That's about the place where play is going to be. So again you're looking at 14-17%. I'm not enamored with applying what is essentially the largest benefit universally. I also concede that my above post assumes all target numbers occur equally frequently, and this is unlikely to be true. To do this properly we would need to make assumptions about the frequency of various weapons and armor types and hence the frequency of target numbers in play. This would likely be a campaign-specific thing, particularly regarding fantastic combat. There is unlikely to be one perfectly correct answer for all contexts. So, while all the various methods of determination will have their specific merits, simply doubling d20 adjustments for the 2d6 context seem to me to be the most acceptable general use solution. YMMV and that is fine too.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Nov 19, 2022 21:51:39 GMT -6
So again, 7 and 8 results. That's about the place where play is going to be. So again you're looking at 14-17%. I'm not enamored with applying what is essentially the largest benefit universally. I also concede that my above post assumes all target numbers occur equally frequently, and this is unlikely to be true. To do this properly we would need to make assumptions about the frequency of various weapons and armor types and hence the frequency of target numbers in play. This would likely be a campaign-specific thing, particularly regarding fantastic combat. There is unlikely to be one perfectly correct answer for all contexts. So, while all the various methods of determination will have their specific merits, simply doubling d20 adjustments for the 2d6 context seem to me to be the most acceptable general use solution. YMMV and that is fine too. A fair compromise to produce a campaign-agnostic result might be to simply exclude the extreme cases - about 93% of the target numbers in the Chainmail table fall between 5 and 10, inclusive. That doesn't exclude any numbers on the low end (there are no entries of 2, 3, or 4 in the table at all) and only excludes the most extreme part of the high end. Averaging the percentage benefit across that subset of target numbers seems reasonable to me. Incidentally, after rounding off to the nearest 5%, this comes out to +2, +4, and +6 on a d20 roll anyhow.
|
|