The General D&D thread

4d6? You're giving your players the chance to start a 1st level character with pre-bonus attributes over 20?

Ah, 4d6d1, right. Missed the "best 3" part.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:33:23 PM by ITNW1989

4D6 Best 3 also known drop the lowest :)

Okay, that's better, but I still feel iffy about forcing rolls in order, and I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by switching "reroll 1s" for "reroll totals of 5 or lower," other than to lower ability scores across the board to incentivize ability score increases over feats... except that a) you don't need to do that, because you're already taking away the option to choose feats, and b) it doesn't really lower stats across the board so much as it tears the safety net out from under low rolls. Leaving 1 rolls in really sucks the bottom out of the stat roll, since even though you have the same absolute minimum of 6, those lower scores are going to come up much more often. The only way you can actually come away with a 6 in "reroll 1s" is by rolling

• 2, 2, 2, 2

while in your "reroll <5 total," you could wind up with a 6 through

• 4, 1, 1, 1
• 1, 4, 1, 1
• 1, 1, 4, 1
• 1, 1, 1, 4
• 3, 2, 1, 1
• 3, 1, 2, 1
• 3, 1, 1, 2
• 2, 3, 1, 1
• 2, 1, 3, 1
• 2, 1, 1, 3
• 1, 3, 2, 1
• 1, 1, 3, 2
• 1, 2, 3, 1
• 1, 3, 2, 1
• 1, 1, 2, 3
• 2, 2, 2, 2
• 2, 2, 2, 1
• 2, 2, 1, 2
• 2, 1, 2, 2
• 1, 2, 2, 2

making a score of 6 20x more likely.

And the issue of pigeonholing by stat roll order is still there, even with the ability to switch two stats. Coming up with a -2 in something like Dex or Con basically forces the player to switch another stat in there, which locks them into whatever their other rolls where in order, thereby determining for them what classes they can actually function as. RNGesus forbid that they come up with a -2 in both Dex and Con.

Agreed.

Forcing to roll in order is stupid because you end up making players stat decide what character they make, as opposed to the players deciding what character they want to make. There's no net gain for your players enjoyment other than making "choose what you want to be" a chore and potentially frustrating since you can be pigeonholed in something you hate. And there's few things more annoying than a character you don't like or feel forced to play.

I also find the feat removal iffy. 5E is VERY low in character customization - especially for non caster. You pick a race, a class, and a class feature. Feats are one of the _few_ ways a player can give his class a unique flair in terms of mechanic.

Feats being locked out is also very punishing to the fighter, who is balanced around the idea that they get so many stat increases, they can trade those for feats for little draw back. Further backed up by the number of feats that are clearly designed around fighting styles and choices (Polearm mastery, sentinel, shield mastery, etc...)

edited 25th Jan '18 6:11:47 PM by Ghilz

Rolling in order I'd only recommend if you honestly don't know what to play and want to let the stats decide it for you.

There is nothing wrong with having one score at 6. Thats why the option of switching one pair of stats exist just in case. Also if someone managed to roll more then one really low stat I'd let him re-roll one

No your not going to be good in everything, Yes you might have one really bad stat also if you follow the 5th ed rules there is no rule for re-rolling ones that's a house-rule option.

The goal is to force people to think of different characters than they might normally play. And if you really have something in mind you can at least make sure you have a 15 in the one main stat you need.

@Ghilz

There locked out as a free choice. I think you missed the part where I fully intend to doll them out as either rewards for things done or action taken by players to learn them over time. Its not like they will never have them.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:19:00 PM by Davrix

Or you take Spoony WAY too seriously

edited 25th Jan '18 6:17:52 PM by BlackSunNocturne

"The goal is to punish players for having desires/preferences"

Got it :-P

Like, why do your players need to "forced" to play "something different they might make"?

It's their choice what they make. It comes across as petty. "They are too dumb to chose on their own. So I'm taking it away from them"

Heck, with the removal of feat, I think you really hate the notion of player agency.

Furthering my point: Feats are rewards, chosen by the DM, not something you trust your players choosing for themselves.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:20:17 PM by Ghilz

Punish would be to not let them switch two stats.. You will still get at least one 15 in the stat you want if you insist on having a certain ideal. I find this very odd that everyone is so lazer focused on this one aspect of the post.

Coz it's a very stupid aspect, so of course people will question it. It has zero net benefit.

But hey, whatever, your game, run it however you want.

A friend of mine had a DM who also wanted to force their players to step outside their comfort zone. They accomplished it simply by ruling "you have to play a race and class you've never played before."

I've done that to friend who played a Human Paladin. But I still let him pick. And heck, if he wanted to go human Pally again, I'd have let him. In the end I run the game for the players. Forcing their hands doesn't give me anything.

You are entitled to your opinion but please don't label something as stupid. You can disagree with me all you like but don't label my idea as stupid. Because one it's not and two its just insulting me.

Also I don't see how giving the players there +2 and then tossing them feats is punishing them. If a player really wants GWM he simply would have to tell me and I would ask how he would go about learning it over the coarse of a few levels or perhaps I would come up with a reward for him. You seem hell bent on the idea that its a bad thing for the DM to take players out of their comfort zone.

Edit

Also you act like I'm being like a dictator here. If a player took issue I would simply suggest try it for a few games with what you rolled if its not for you I would simply let them re-roll

@Black Sun Nocturne

Also if i recall spoony was talking 3D6 in order straight from his counter monkey

Also I could amend the rule to 4D6 B3 in order - Switch two and Re-roll your lowest stat. The goal isn't to punish people just make them think a little more about a character and maybe get some oddball fun things. Have you ever played a wizard that could bench press wagon?

edited 25th Jan '18 6:35:10 PM by Davrix

That's a much better solution than pigeonholing through attributes. It forces players to go outside their comfort zone while still allowing a lot of agency and choice.

It IS stupid because "roll in order, no rerolls" is basically forcing players to either play purposely bad characters due to randomness of dice (hope you're not planning on running a combat-focused campaign, or a social one if everyone's stats are terrible aside from two 15s). Yes, you can switch and they have to have two 15s. But what happens when the two 15s are their ONLY good stats? Tell them to suck it up and deal with it?

And the removal/locking of feats... That's just being a jerk DM, especially with 5 edition removing like 70 to 80 percent of customization.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:34:02 PM by BlackSunNocturne

I still find the idea stupid and will continue to call it a stupid idea as it is a stupid idea in my opinion

It doesn't make you stupid. Plenty of people have stupid ideas. Happens to all of us. God knows I've had plenty.

If you don't like people finding your idea stupid, don't post it where people can read it. I've made my case on why I find the idea to be stupid. But like I said, it's your game, run it however you please.

Nah, I take issue in forcing players to do that. Which is the word you used. Force^note "The goal is to force people to think of different characters than they might normally play.". Encourage, sure. Force, never. And especially not at the mercy of a die roll. If a player like playing the same thing every campaign, why would I punish them? They are having fun and that's the point of the game. I'm not gonna go and tell them "You're playing it wrong and making you do different is inherently better than what you're doing". Which is why I also say, it's ultimately your game. If that's how you'll have fun D Ming, then more power to you, and good for you! It's a game. Have fun,

Because taking one of the few bit of customization 5e offered and making it something your player need to "earn" seems pointlessly punishing to me.

"You want this? Justify it to me!" does seem dictatorial yes.

But like I said, if that's how you and your players have fun, good for you. You have my sincerest best wishes for a memorable campaign full of fun moments.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:41:43 PM by Ghilz

You will still get at least one 15 in the stat you want if you insist on having a certain ideal.

But no class hinges on only a single ability score being good. Most classes need at least one other stat to be decent at minimum, and if they can't ensure that they have a decent score in both stats, it's basically unplayable. You can't be a functional monk without good Dex AND Con AND Wis. You can't be a functional paladin without good Con AND Cha AND either Str or Dex. Even something as straightforward as a fighter or wizard needs at least two specific scores to be good to be functional - a fighter has to have decent Con on top of their high Str or Dex to survive the melee, and a wizard better have decent Dex or Con on top of their high Int or they're going to spending 90% of every combat incapped because every arrow coming at them is another potential death save waiting to happen.

Perhaps force was the wrong term, encourage is more the goal yes and as stated I wouldn't demand they stick to it, just try it for a bit or take the stat array from the book and use that and assign as you wish. But if were going to go by intent of words. Your use of stupid brings about a negative aspect to your critique. Calling it a bad idea is fine in your opinion but calling it stupid makes the person in question feel stupid. Much as you just corrected me in my use of using the term Force instead of encourage.

The goal isn't to prevent players from having feats, the goal is to make them feel like they earned them and not just picked it from the book because hey mechanics. 5th is in this odd place where half the time people pick GWM - SS - PAM - SENT and by no means will I tell a player no if they want to aim for these feats. I think your misunderstanding something. They can PICK a feat to go earn I am not holding them hostage and saying they can only have what I'm giving them. Instead I'm saying here take your +2 stat at lv 4 8 12 and so on and then tell me how you will gain the feat you want and role play it. Spend time training or seeking out a master. Maybe I can feed it into a plot hook. So no there isn't any malice or dictatorship in locking them off and aside from the human variant you have 4 levels before you can even get one.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:50:22 PM by Davrix

Honestly this all just furthers my dislike of rolling die for stat generation in general.

I've seen so many parties tear themselves apart coz one player rolls amazingly, while others don't and resentment builds.

Standard arrays and point buys are literally the best thing to ever happen to D&D. And I've played since first, so it's not like I've not lived the period of "Roll fer stats". (Or roll for stats in order and hope you can be something else than a fighter)

edited 25th Jan '18 6:48:21 PM by Ghilz

I actually thought like you for the longest time. Only wanted my stat array so I could best pick my stats so I could always be good. But after awhile you do get that feeling of it being cookie cutter after awhile. I'm not saying this is the best idea for every game but i hope you can admit that randomness might be fun once in awhile to play around with.

No. Because this:

Rolling for stats has the (incredibly likely) chance of creating MASSIVE disparity between player character effectiveness and usefulness.

I will take that over one player refusing to work with the other coz the other rolled 3 straight 18s and the first player barely managed a single 15 and the resentment of the first player riding the rewards of his one bout of luck while the other rides the cost of a failure he had no control over for months builds up into a weight that crushes the fun out of the game.

Or of a player straight up feeling like he's a drag to the party as his character has far inferior rolls to the others and he can't mitigate that or catch up and the player actually leaves.

Which yes, are scenario I've lived through. Heck, I've lived the second one multiple times. I've been the second one once in my younger years.

"Oh nos the numbers are same!" is such a non-issue to me it's borderline laughable.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:59:41 PM by Ghilz

I think anyone who's ever played in a group that rolled for stats knows what that's like Ghilz. I know I have

Mind you, if everyone's on board, I'm fine with stat rolling. In a world where arrays exist, so long as it's clear from the start, and it's the entire group who accepts to roll for stats instead of arrays (Not just the DM who mandates it), I'm fine with rolling stats. But the key is every player needs to accept it and not feel like it's a "Take it or GTFO of my game" peer pressure thing.

I still stand that my games will always be array/point buy based, but people who pick to roll? Well, like I said, it's their game, if they have fun, I ain't judging.

edited 25th Jan '18 7:04:23 PM by Ghilz

Yeah, I had a group that ended up disbanding because one player's resentment eventually hit a peak over his array being just average, while me and the other two players ended up with at least one 18; and this is a group that agreed on sticking to the stat rolls, even if they ended up being shittier than a standard point buy. I'm lucky that my longest-running group's members are all chill, and there's literally no resentment over the fact that I ended up rolling 2 18s and a 17 on my character while one of them is practically the epitome of an average Joe.