D&D - Ability Score Systems

I use a points buy system as it's the absolute fairest that won't leave someone feeling bad for having unlucky rolls on their dice. Everyone is on the same playing field then.

Point buy is fairest, but rolling dice with mulligans is the most fun in my opinion. I'll usually leave it up to my players preference if they have one, but otherwise I'll go roll to see what weird numbers we can end up with. If it's a 7 or lower or a second 8 or 9 I'll usually allow a reroll once.

Rolling for each ability in order is a pretty hardcore old school thing to do. That can also be fun but you need to make sure you have the right group. No matter what you pick you don't want someone to cry out unfair later on.

I've seen both the the first option and the points system. Points are the most video gamey, and give the player the most control over character creation. I've probably used that the most. Some guys I've played with like the randomness associated with rolling dice more than they're tied to a specific build, but I've never seen anybody do anything like option 2. One upside of dice is it tends to discourage min-maxing, and the party usually winds up with fewer munchkins as a result.

A roll-for-stats system is really only fun and interesting in games where you expect to die lots and are cranking out new characters a lot.

That second option is totally an old school method. The idea would be that you would roll for stats *before* deciding what kind of character you would play. It's nice for introducing randomness into your party, or to get people to play in ways that they might not normally.

That being said, in fifth edition, either standard array or point buy tends to work the best. Something many people don't think about, with the rolling, is that there's going to be differences in the party in terms of power. This can be fun in a one shot, but often gets old in a longer campaign. I mean, everyone likes being the guy who never fails a roll because they have awesome modifiers, but being a player with standard scores in that same party can be a bit of a bummer.

Pure rolling for stats seems fun for a one shot, otherwise point buy.

I haven't played D&D since the Second Edition, so I was very confused by 4d6 at first. Back in my day, we did the second option, but only rolled 3d6 and kept it. None of this high faluten "drop the lowest" flim flam.

Only rolling 3d6 without removing low scores was the standard method in 1st/2nd ed AD&D, but then most players would just discard PCs until they got the rolls they wanted, hence why they changed it in 3E.

4E player's guide has several rows of possible combinations based on the points buy system, I simply picked one and went with it.

The last time I played D&D (which was a LONG time ago) I'd did the 2nd method. Just seemed like the way to do it back then while providing at least a certain push up from the even earlier "just roll 3D6" system.

These days I'm not sure what I'd prefer. The point allocation system has the most obvious potential in crafting a character that you roughly already have in mind and is probably the best solution for the majority of players and groups. The biggest hesitation I have about that system (and even the first option) is that it can lend itself to min/maxing whereas the 2nd option can force you to be creative in working around shortfalls in stats and there's a certain roleplaying value in that IMHO.

I'm used to a variant of the first option, where you roll 7 times rather than 6 then drop the lowest of those 7, this can help characters have better stats, althought despite this there has been times when rolling using this method I've gotten disappointingly middling stats in a group where others have gotten notably better stats (not to sound like I'm the type to complain about having bad stats).

I do like using the standard/point buy, as it helps insure your character is good at least one thing, although outside of 5e it doesn't help too much if your character needs to have most stats high, like the monk (most of my experience comes from 3.5 & Pathfinder with a bit of 5e). I think it does help if everyone uses the same method, because as mentioned by others here previously, it helps keep things on a level playing field; I've run a game where players were upset by their lower stat block, because they used point buy and others rolled well.

As for other methods I heard of that aren't listed;

• I've thought of using a 2d6 (or 3d6 drop lowest) +6, which is basically the same excepts prevents values from being below 8 (before racial mods). Similarily I had a friend tell me he had a game where the rolled 4d6 without dropping and then had a character with 24 STR.
• A couple times in the past when rolling for stats one player had rolled remarkably well, (e.g.: 2 stats at 18 with no stat below 14), and that player asked to allow everyone to uses said stat array. Which made things theoretically fair as there's less of a difference in power. So in short a set array, that is more powerful than the standard array.
• There also roll a d20 for stats, which is best for a shorter run game or one shot due to the greater randomness of how stats can be.
• I heard that in older editions (I think, might be a different system) used a more adaptive version of the 4d6 drop lowest, where you roll a number of d6's based off your class, so if you are a wizard you roll a d6 for strength but 6d6 drop lowest 3 for INT. EDIT: Dice pools, that what this method was called.

I like the first option the most since it seems more in keeping with the "randomness of the dice" theme that the rest of the game has; the point allocation system seems to give too much control to players. But it also isn't too punishing because players can pick where each roll goes.

Also, when I'm DMing I have players do the stat rolling before anything else in character creation. That way, they have the option of changing their planned race/class if something unexpected comes up with the dice.

I've always liked the "roll stats in order, no fudging or do-overs". It just feels like my players put more effort into these types than ones where they assign stats toward a character idea. If they have free reign, we always wind-up with pretty generic min/maxed archetypes with their whole build planned out before we even start the game. Of course, my thinking's probably been molded by the fact that Hackmaster (a parody game built around the 2nd Ed. AD&D ruleset) was my first game.

Hackmaster's character generation is extensive. Were you born from wedded parents? Were they good parents? Any siblings? Are they alive? Do they love/hate you? Social class, family Honor (an important stat in Hackmaster), missing eyes and limbs, mental issues, social quirks, and even (with supplemental materials) the extent and quality of the basic training your received to become your class all get worked through.

My D&D group switched from rolling 4d6s and dropping the lowest number to point buy. I'm not a huge fan of point buy but I can see why it is appealing. It just feels too constricting to me at least how my DM does it. He gives us 70 points to spend which means you can either make a very average character or a character that is good in one stat and the rest are dump stats.

The last few groups I've run have done the "4d6 drop lowest" method, which is fun and plays into the "randomness" of D&D. It's also led to a lot of PCs with absurdly good stats early on and I'm considering changing to something boring and more balanced (standard array or point buy) with my next one.

I have never used the point buy system, but I can see where ist would be fair across many players in a group. I still like the luck of the dice...I have a new, very small group who like a good laugh.

My fighter after adjustments for being human came out with...

• Strength = 16
• Dexterity 14
• Constitution = 9
• Intelligence = 10
• Wisdom = 11
• Charisma = 13

That Constitution score at level one was tripping me up all the time - I was a fragile eagle. Yet, I lived! It was fun for the whole group because when I hit I hit hard and when I got hit is everyone winced. Sure, I could have picked 13 for my constitution, but I wanted higher charisma...which payed off the the role-play for sure. I fully expect this character might die slipping in mud before lvl 3, but that's okay.

Always point buy. I mean, I guess rolling your stats can be entertaining, but it's usually more fun to make the character you want. Especially if you're going to be using them for a long time.

Wow, that is a ROUGH point buy system! The one in the book is a bit more fair. Just to play around with what is possible I looked at this site: http://chicken-dinner.com/5e/5e-point-buy.html

I've always kind of liked the rolling method rather than points, but then I guess I'm a purist. I like a little bit of wiggle room, though, so I guess the first option sounds good to me!

I prefer spending points over random chance. Why arbitrarily limit yourself because a cube didn't fall the right way? "Uh I spent forty years studying wizardry, but I can only cast two spells 'cause the gods decided brains weren't for me. But I'm real tough! Somehow..."

Been in too many parties where one PC was simply better than the others to still use rolling on a regular basis. I like point buy in pathfinder/3.5 and an array in 5e. Every once in a while I like going old school though. Recently I've been running Dungeon Crawl Classics and having my players use the default generation method of 3d6 down the line and then running them through a level 0 funnel, which I absolutely love.

@bocckob: That situation would never happen with standard rolling though. Unless the player deliberately chose to place their good roll into strength and bad into intelligence. And if you did old school rolling (rolling stats in order) you aren't supposed to pick your class before rolling with that old method, so again it wouldn't happen unless the player deliberately gimps themself. It's cool if you prefer consistency over chance, but that's a really weak example to put against it.

I saw this video series that I thought was neat. The History of D&D, One Fighter at a Time

He does not get it 100% correct in some cases, but it illustrates how clunky and odd D&D used to be...maybe still is now.

What I realized from watching this is that for a few weeks in 1983 I was likely playing D&D Basic edition. I thought I had played AD&D in middle school. However, I was really playing mostly Basic edition which was newer yet ran more like the older game. I think in 1984 I played some AD&D in 8th grade and a little summer before my freshman year in H.S. So, while I looked at the AD&D books a lot, I likely never really played much under those rules. In fact I thinbk much of 8th grade I was playing a "spy themed" RPG that I do not recall.

3d6 in order is my preferred method, I like the fact it can force you into new or strange choices you might not have chosen otherwise. But I am also in a very small minority when it comes to that.

I don't like or do point buy, makes everything cookie cutter.

On average I most often end up doing 4d6, drop lowest, and you can choose how to place them. Common house rules I've seen allow one reroll, or allow a complete reroll, but you must make an npc out of the original stats. (Gives the DM some extra stuff to work with in exchange for getting to try again.)

I've also experimented with a wide range of variants over the years, including a common pool, a draft system, weighted, etc.

Importantly, and something players tend to lose sight of, especially newer players: Stats don't matter.

As you play you will advance them through leveling and gear, and depending on the DM, there are other ways as well. If I have a character in the group I'm running who is a fighter but rolled poorly for strength and dex, etc, if they make it a point that their character is seeking to remedy that, I'll offer opportunities for them. Maybe they get the chance to make a deal with an entity in return for strength, maybe they just find rumors of a pair of gauntlets of ogre strength, etc, etc. Their initial weakness becomes a plot point and adventure hook for that character.

Unfortunately not many players see low stats as a opportunity for adventure or role playing. Having a low stat that isn't a primary one doesn't mean you ignore it as a dump stat, it can be great for role playing as well.

Rolling is always more fun to me, especially 3d6 straight down but only for OSR games.

Point buy is fun but boy does it drag things out, and gets new players focusing on "the best build" which is a mindset I dont like to encourage.

It depends entirely on who you are and what the group your playing with is after. Point buy is the most fair, and for some groups its the absolutely best option for this reason. No one wants to feel left behind or inferior; everyone is there to be poweriful and do cool things. If you don't have a maxed out stat in your primary casting/attack stat, your just gonna be behind the curve of everyone else. And so on. When mechanical equilibrium between PCs is important, point buy is the very best method.

In other groups, rolling for stats, even the 2nd pure 3d6 and assign in order is integral too developing a picture of the character your playing and give you some immediate ins for how to roleplay them. This can be especially true in games with extremely high mortality rates and/or character turn over. And indeed, when story-telling is the most important thing, the story of a fighter with a strength of 9 and an Intelligence of 18 can produce some very good post-game memories.

Its utterly subjective. There is no one right way. Point buy or a very re-roll friendly 4d6 tends to be what most people go with for the big major games 5e Dnd, Pathfinder, because at the end of the day, you don't want to fall into the trap of giving 1 character straight 18s in all stats, where the highest stat among the other 3 players is a 14, especially if the guy with the straight 18s is gonna abuse situation or the DM is going to throw a lot of content where roll play always trumps role play. (dice beat creative thinking)>

And that's fine. If whatever you do works for you, roll with it and move on. Its certainly a topic DMs and groups should consider when first starting together and evaluate as they go. But its certainly not a '1 way is right and only 1 way". As I said, totally subjective.

If I'm not allowed to Points Buy then I'm not playing. If you're going to let me have agency over my class/race/background/etc. then you might as well let me have agency over my stat spread as well.

The 2 games I DM have all been new players so I use the standard array. It doesn't make anyone feel more powerful than the others, isn't as overwhelming when it's your first character and gives them good roleplay/character building opportunities by having them reason out why they aren't good at a certain ability.

It depends on the campaign type I'm playing or trying to run but I typically use a mix of 4d6 with two mulligans or 4d6 with three additional stat points you can put into any ability as long as it doesn't go over 18.

I typically like the 4d6 with three points better as it allows people to build towards a class they better want to play. Nothing is worse than playing a Fighter that lacks constitution or something equivalent to that. It also prevents people from feeling like they were cheated by the dice. It typically leads to more power games but those are the kinds I like to play/run.

I agree there is always a way to role play out of it. And, if you role pay out of it, it is far more fun. You have to imagine, in a world of deities and demigods, eventually a persistent person might find his prayers answered.

As I told my new DM on the second night of play, "The world is what you make it, Cady. Sometime enemies MIGHT walk away from a fight laughing because they beat us all near to death. And, sometimes a wolf that is tearing our arm off will get spooked and run off." It took her awhile but she got it, just as she expected "us" to role play, she TOO has to 'bend' the events to make it a good story. "And they all died 40 minute into their adventure," is a terrible story.

And, sometimes depending on the group....that is a great story

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." ~ Brickhill (1954)

@monkeyking1969: The 0th rule gets forgotten a lot, people tend to get hung up on the letter instead of the spirit of them.

"Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the DM thinks should be changed... The purpose of these 'rules' is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them." - Basic D&D.

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only." - AD&D player's Handbook.

"Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook." - 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide.

Ultimately it is about having fun as a group, and a story about a fighter who strives to overcome his natural frailty and becomes a great champion in spite of it is almost always going to be more interesting than the guy who started off awesome at everything.

As far as having enemies let the players go, it depends on the circumstance though. I've had it go too far the other way with one DM I played with long ago. He tended to throw some pretty tough stuff at us, and if we became overwhelmed would deus ex machina our survival. kinda sucked all the tension and fun out of the game when it was clear nothing bad would ever happen. We could bumble into the main villain blind folded, drunk without any healing supplies or spells, and still somehow make it out ok.