A new way to roll stats!

[The Heretic]

(I know Squeen will be THRILLED with this idea)

Instead of rolling 3d6 for each stat, in order, you have to play yahtzee first. THEN you take your scores from the top part of the scorecard (Ones, Twos, Threes, etc) and arrange them how you like. Anything higher than 18 will count as 18.

Just imagine if you rolled this...
1s: 3
2s: 4
3s: 9
4s: 12
5s: 20
6s: 12

You could have that 18 you always wanted!

(but you still couldn't play a paladin, sorry, tough luck mister)

 

[squeen]

I think the key is to have the player's stats have a very small impact in the game --- that way fewer folks will chase them so hard.
It was an AD&D miss-step in many ways...but, oh well.

This is where I'm leaning these days with house-rules for attributes:

1. 3d6 in order
2. re-roll one with 4d6 keeping the highest 3 --- if it's lower, dem's the breaks pal
3. increase a main attribute by 1 pt at level 3 (18 max)
4. increase two attributes of your choice by 1 pt at name-level (18 max)
5. drink from subterranean pools, swallow dubious potions, make wishes and odd pacts, etc...and hope for the best!

 

[Beoric]

This sort of thing really can't be system independent. 0e was designed so that your character could function properly when you have no bonus. 3e to 5e is designed so you need to have a bonus of at least a certain amount in your primary stat if you want your character to have the same utility. So you need minimum scores in at least one or two abilities.

For example, playing a fighter with a 15 strength in 4e (+2 bonus to hit) would be about the equivalent of playing a fighter with a 7 strength in 1e (-1 penalty to hit), which I note is not legal at first level in 1e.

You could probably make consistently playable (if slightly substandard) characters in 4e with the following system:

1. 3d6 in order.
2. If your highest score is lower than 16, make it 16.
3. If your second highest score is lower than 14, make it 14.
4. You may swap your second lowest score with any other ability other than your best ability.

That is, they would be playable if you used the assumptions of the 1e implied setting that allow you to choose your danger level, or if you used OSR assumptions (i.e. avoid fair combat at all costs).

A slightly better character might be:

1. 4d6, drop 1 die, in order.
2. If your highest score is lower than 16, make it 16.
3. You may swap any two scores with each other, once. Note you probably don't need this if you can freely pick your race.

You can probably make a functional paladin if you have a 16 in strength or charisma. But like I have said before, they are not the powerhouse you find in 1e.

 

[The Heretic]

I think the key is to have the player's stats have a very small impact in the game --- that way fewer folks will chase them so hard.
It was an AD&D miss-step in many ways...but, oh well.

Stats do make sense, though. How else can you tell if someone is smarter, stronger, or wiser? The distribution of the bonuses and penalties was probably better in B/X though.

Also, this is something the 3e+ does better (EVEN THOUGH YOU WON'T WANT TO HEAR IT). Point buy systems. You can get an 18 but it will cost you elsewhere. It also puts everyone on an even keel.

 

[Beoric]

Also, this is something the 3e+ does better (EVEN THOUGH YOU WON'T WANT TO HEAR IT). Point buy systems. You can get an 18 but it will cost you elsewhere. It also puts everyone on an even keel.

I don't think that is unequivocally a feature. You tend to end up with everyone having nearly identical arrays, just placed in different scores according to class. I think there is something to be said for making the best of what you get, provided you don't end up with an unplayable character. So I like a bit of randomness, both in terms of how high your scores are and which abilities they are assigned to. And I like the idea of choosing class after your abilities have been generated, based on what you get.

But it can be hard to make it work in late edition D&D because abilities play a much larger role in the game. In early edition D&D only the outliers get bonuses, so you have a much larger range of workable scores; for example, IIRC an 8 strength incurs no penalties to your attack, so a thief or cleric can get away with anything from 8-18. In 4e, you want a score of no less than 16 in your primary ability, and some classes really don't do well unless you have an 18. That is not a whole lot of differentiation.

On the other hand, in 4e you can make a workable character that keys off any ability. So you are not stuck with strength for melee characters, or dex for ranged characters, which means you can have a lot of differentiation respecting which are your primary and secondary abilities.

I've played with variations on all of these:

* array randomly chosen from among a list of arrays that are legal under the point buy system
* randomly determining which abilities receive which scores
* randomly determing race
* randomly determining class, from among a short list appropriate to your primary ability score
* use any legal array that includes a 10 and an 11 and assign to abilities; choose class and race; reroll the 10 and 11 score using 3d6 for each (this can get you wildly different scores in abilities that are usually not important to your character, for a little variety)
* 4d6 in order, drop 1 die; if highest ability is less than 16, make it 16; if second highest ability is less than 14, make it 14

 

[squeen]

Stats do make sense, though. How else can you tell if someone is smarter, stronger, or wiser? The distribution of the bonuses and penalties was probably better in B/X though.

Also, this is something the 3e+ does better (EVEN THOUGH YOU WON'T WANT TO HEAR IT). Point buy systems. You can get an 18 but it will cost you elsewhere. It also puts everyone on an even keel.

I think you've brushed aside my point a bit: I'm saying that the high-stats bonus should have little in-game impact so that players aren't so concerned with them. Then the distribution is irrelevant, as would be a "better system" for obtaining them. I gather, from what you all have told me, that's a no-go for later editions---high stats are a requirement for survival. Que Sera.

How about this: all PCs start with 12 for every ability. Just a tic about average. Very fair.

 

[Beoric]

Its just a matter of different design assumptions. In 4e you need at least one decent stat, and usually one middling stat to be competent. The rest can theoretically be dumped.

The other thing is you don't need multiple good stats to qualify for certain classes. This is because the class design attempts to avoid having any class be clearly better than the others. In 1e, a ranger and a paladin are both clearly better than a fighter, and cannot be played without multiple above average stats. In 4e, a ranger and a paladin are not better than a fighter (the paladin may be slightly worse), but they are easier to qualify for.

But the other thing to consider is the design doesn't just require that your primary be 4 or more points better than an average stat; it also requires that an average stat be 4 or more point worse than a primary stat. That is, you need to have one or two stats be high, but you also need to prevent the other four stats from being high, because stat requirements unlock other options. So you don't get wizards who are good fighters, or fighters who are effective spellcasters (well, not without paying a significant price).

This means it's not just as simple as using 3d6 in order and shifting the curve to reduce defences by 3. Because if you did that, everyone could make basic melee and ranged attacks as well as a fighter, ranger or paladin. So you need that 16, and probably that 14, but after that you could have 10, 10, 6, 4, and probably make it work. In fact, I bet 3d6 in order, raise highest to 16 if necessary, raise second highest to 14 if necessary, would probably work just fine in 4e.

 

[EOTB]

i want players to have a good chance to be a badass in whatever stat prime to the character they’d like to play next.

What bores the living fuck out of me is when every character’s 2nd and 3rd best rolls routinely go into the same secondary stats. Which is why I use the ring system - roll 36 times, making a circle of numbers as you go (no moving rolls around the circle). Start your character anywhere along that ring of numbers you want.

You can always pick one attribute to put your best roll in, but then all other stats are in order. If you want an 18 WIS cleric you’d start your string 2 rolls before that 18 (STR, INT, WIS, etc)