Have you ever played a character in 4e D&D without optimized stats? A Fighter with a Strength score below 14 or a Wizard with an Intelligence under 14? I think it’s safe to say that none of us have done it. Why would you? The game assumes that you’re going to have a decent score (16+) in your primary ability from the outset and to ensure this we use the point buy system to assign the numbers as we deem appropriate. Add to that racial bonuses and there’s really no reason you’d even have to play a character with a low score in their primarily ability.
As long as players use point buy to assign scores we’re always going to see fully optimized stats. All Fighters will have exceptional Strength. All Wizards will have exceptional Intelligence. The base foundation on which characters are built (the six ability scores) will be similar, if not identical, when comparing characters of similar classes. The mechanics of 4e almost demand that this be the case. It’s not to your advantage to play a PC with sub-optimized ability scores. If you want to be on par with the game’s power baseline you have to optimize the numbers. A character with a 14 in his main ability will be less powerful than his allies. But is this really a bad thing.
Some of the most memorable characters I’ve ever played have not had exceptional ability scores. All of these characters were created using older D&D mechanics. We didn’t assign ability scores, we rolled them. When I first began playing D&D everyone made characters using the old 3d6 method. You rolled 3d6, added them up, and that was your ability score. There were a few variations but in the end the ability scores were determined by random rolls and the luck of the dice. It was extremely rare to have an 18 in any ability score at level 1. Even two scores of 16 or more was practically unheard of.
Rolling your abilities randomly really added something to the character creation process that has disappeared with 4e. Today if I’m making a character I do it on a laptop, in the comfort and privacy of my game room. The social atmosphere that used to accompany character creation has long since disappeared, assuming it was ever present in 4e.
When I make a character in 4e I don’t need to consult with the other players in my group about what everyone’s playing. There is such balance in 4e that a party can get by with almost any group of characters as long as their all optimized. It’s certainly easier if the four roles are represented, but an experienced group can be just as effective with an unbalanced party. Because of this there is no need to make the character creation process social.
Rolling for ability scores changes how you make a character. It doesn’t just add a new step that requires you to rolls the dice a few times, it encourages community. Before 4e I never made characters by myself. It was a shared experience. You’d invite the gaming group over and often you’d spend an entire session making PCs. One of the reasons for this was to keep everyone honest. If I was lucky enough to actually roll and 18 or two I wanted witnesses. I didn’t want anyone doubting that my ability scores were indeed what the dice gods provided me with.
Even the way I made decisions during character creation was different when I rolled my scores. Today I usually choose class first. Then I find a race that has suitable racial modifiers in the abilities I think I’ll need most. Then, using point buy, I assign the points to the abilities that I need for my class. The result is usually one score that starts at 18+ and one that starts at 16+. Of course there are times when I simply want to play a race/class combo that doesn’t mesh perfectly, but I again make up for the shortfall when I’m assigning my ability scores.
When abilities are determined by the dice, I do all the rolling first. If I’m using the method where the stats are recorded in the order rolled than I need to see where the dice fall before choosing a class. I’m less likely to play a Fighter if my first total is only a 9. Usually I wait to see where the highest number ends up and then choose a class that relies on that ability. A high Wisdom means a Cleric, a High Dexterity is a Rogue or Ranger; you get the idea. If the numbers are relatively flat then this is when race can help make a good score a great score or to shore up a low number in a secondary ability. If we use the method where we roll the six scores and then assign the numbers to the six ability scores as we see fit, then I’ve got a lot more options when it comes to class and I’m less likely to pick a race just because it will bump a low score.
When you rely on the dice to determine ability scores it’s entirely possible that the party won’t have anyone with a high Strength. Does this mean you play without a Fighter or that someone plays a less optimized Fighter? By making character creation a social exercise you can figure these things out as a group.
The social experience that accompanies character creation is certainly a strong argument for using rolling over point buy, but there is an even better reason – character diversity. As I mentioned above, characters with average numbers, or even below average numbers, tend to be more interesting. They’re not perfect. They may be really good at one thing but terrible in most others. And isn’t this a more accurate representation of real life? I realize that many people play fantasy role-playing games to escape reality but I want to have fun when I play. If everyone PC is the very best at what they do it often makes for a less exciting experience.
Look at the characters in Harry Potter as an example. The stories take place in a school full of Wizards. If these characters were all created using the 4e point buy then they’d all have an 18 or higher Intelligence at the outset. However, it’s clear that Hermione has a much higher intelligence than Harry, and Harry probably has a higher Intelligence that Ron. Had all three been equally intelligent the stories would have been pretty boring. The fact that they all have different strengths and weaknesses makes them a more interesting adventuring party, despite the fact that they’re all Wizards.
The greatest disadvantage of rolling dice to determine ability scores is that it’s impossible to ensure equality between characters. While diversity is actually something to be encouraged during a home game, it can be a nightmare during public play. And this is where point buy has a clear advantage over dice rolling methods – point buy levels the playing field. This is vitally important during public play. Any elements left to chance will be abused. You know that you’d constantly see characters with six 18s. “I swear that’s what I rolled. My dice were red hot that night. Ask my mom, she witnessed it!”
With the next iteration of D&D currently being developed and play-tested it will be interesting to see how ability scores are determined. Will players have the choice to use point buy or roll dice? Will the system support both methods equally or will point buy still be the preferred way to determine ability scores? If Wizards of the Coast is truly looking to bring back the best elements of previous editions then I for one hope they do encourage the old 3d6 method for determine ability scores. Looking at the bigger picture I see this as an important element of D&D that was lost with 4e. Point buy works for the game that 4e is today, but with changes on the horizon I think there’s room to bring back this tried and true method of character creation.
What are you thoughts on using the 3d6 method to create ability scores? Do you think bringing it back will help D&D or do you think that point buy is the way to go? Can you see a system that allows players using either method to sit at the same game table and feel like their on level playing field? Do you think there any method that involves dice rolling should have qualifiers like no more than one 18 or reroll any ability score under 8?
Related reading:
- Playing Characters With Low Ability Scores
- Adventuring With A Sub-Optimal Party (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4)
View Comments (27)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 Next »Random die rolling works when ability scores are of lesser importance to the game than selection of class. Random die rolling does not work when ability scores are the most important element of the game.
3rd edition shifted the focus heavily away from class and onto ability scores. 4th edition continued with that idea. Moving saving throws from a class based score to an ability score based one, for example, shifts the focus away from class and onto individual ability scores. Of course you need to optimize your ability scores in a 3rd edition or better game - bad scores are going to lead to bad saves/defenses, bad hit points, bad attacks and so on.
And 3rd edition had a tighter balance than earlier editions (a trend 4th edition continues) so that those extra bonuses REALLY MATTER. Prior to 3rd edition suppose you had a fighter with a 12 Strength. He loses out on a bonus of +1 to +3 to hit, and he loses out on an XP bonus (in games where the DM actually used the XP bonus system), but it's not going to mean much to your survival because the AC of monsters didn't really scale with level much. AC was in a range from roughly -2 to 8 for most monsters you would face for the first 10 levels. What made monsters survive longer wasn't their high ACs - it was their extra hit points. And an extra +1 to +3 on damage might be meaningful there, but not as much as the extra +20% that a Strength 18 fighter has in 3rd edition where AC scales more with level (and hit bonuses increase in a ridiculously quick manner that FORCES AC to scale quickly with level or else AC becomes meaningless - a trend that continues in 4th edition).
So this comes back to the same ancient argument - Should ability scores be mechanically meaningful in the game, or should they be more "flavor" to suggest how your character should be run and have less influence on the mechanics? (an argument, I might add, that seems like it was an old one when I started playing the game back in 1980 and I doubt will be solved by another iteration of the game). If you downplay the importance of ability scores to mechanics and make them primarily a "role playing" framework, then random ability scores can be awesome. If ability scores drive the core of the character then random ability scores suck. Finding the balance between those two poles might be a worthwhile task (and frankly I'd prefer to see ability scores de-emphasized in the next edition in favor of class again), but I doubt you'll ever find much agreement...
I think this is a very good point. In 4E, it tends to be one's role or class that defines who you are when you play. My characters are Paladins or Warlocks, but they are not defined as individuals. They tend to be more "Generic Paladin". Back in my 2E days, the ability scores came first, and truly defined my character as an individual. I was a wizard with a 6 Constitution? What did that mean? I could play that as a character quirk--I was a hypochondriac. A fighter with only average strength (say, 14), but an equally high charisma? I could use that to play a more diplomatic fighter, instead of the typical meat shield. Etc. etc.
My thoughts are that this article is flame bait but, I'll indulge the author.
3d6 was an interesting concept back in the day but it was only viable because the expectation was that players would burn through characters like popcorn, often having one or two backup characters a night if necessary to drop in when the old one inevitability died. I've never seen a group EVER follow that rule. At worst, it was the "4d6, Drop Lowest, roll 6 times and allocate" by even the most hard core DM. But I suspect I know what you're really trying to get at. You want characters with quirks and 'penalties' that they can overcome. You want to see less then perfect characters at the table. Maybe characters who are just 'average joe/jane' who becomes exceptional via deeds then stats.
Well I'm not sure what's the best solution for that, but one concept I had was the idea of having characters with real flaws associated with them that the players could try to 'overcome'. Like a wizard who was sickly, so he has a lame leg or gets ill more easily in place of a low constitution score. Perhaps an ugly rogue (low charisma) might be a decent thief but has the charm of a wet mangy dog. He swears like a sailor and makes regular offensive comments to anyone of the opposite sex but develops a real knack for pickpocketing just the right person at the right time. A lot of these are better defined as personal character quirks or 'disadvantages' that you see in some other systems but not often expressed in D&D.
The problem with rolling stats is that most players I know, pick a class first, or class concept, THEN roll dice to see if they can make it happen, if the DM insists on rolled stats. By forcing rolled stats, you're denying players options, and that goes against everything We've gained in the last 30 years of this industry.
Optimization is a mentality that is supported by the rules, but not required by them. If you can get your players to break the habit and use scores to help describe the character instead of the role then you can use any method you want. If breaking that habit takes forcing 3d6 on yourself, then go with it.
The real key to breaking it is to that all the players and the DM have to be on board with it. If one guy keeps optimizing and gets real in-game benefits from it, or worse, the DM runs adventures that are balanced for optimized characters (or even just combat-heavy ones) then everyone will keep doing it.
The only problem I have with rolling dice for ability scores, is the inequality it can create among characters. If someone with really hot dice rolls three scores over 15 and another player rolls nothing above a 13, it sucks to be Player B.
Dice rolling can also have the opposite effect -- instead of creating a character with a few quirky low scores, it can facilitate the creation of a character that is a veritable super hero with exceptional scores in everything.
I have attempted to make the standard system a bit more interesting by giving very low point buy numbers, and letting players sell one or two stats to numbers below 8.
I'm of two minds over rolling dice in D&D. I liked the 3d6 when I originally played D&D in 1978 or so, the 4d6 (drop lowest) in AD&D, and the current building points method in 4e. They each have their place, and as long as all the players are doing it the same way (and honestly), then there's not a problem. Creating a sucky character in early D&D due to rolling poorly has both good and bad attached to it. If you're creating a playing a character just for a session or so, then I'm all for rolling and letting the dice fall where they may. But no one wants to have a character for years of play which is not as good as someone else's due to your luck during that 5-minute stretch when you were rolling ability scores.
But what I'd really like to talk about is other character creations systems that I've liked.
Even though it's been about 30 years, I have to say that I have a love for the Traveller mustering system, whereby you create a quick character and progress them through a military career and after 15 or 20 minutes, you have your character fresh out of the space corps and ready for adventure. The character creation was, in a sense, a mini-adventure. A system like that for D&D would be interesting. What's interesting is that I remember very little about the actual game of Traveller (even though we played on and off for 2 or 3 years), but have many memories of the character creation, so that's clearly something that they did right.
The Critter Commandos system was also nice and simple, using just 1d6 for 4 abilities (luck was one), as I recall. 1d6 was also used for all combat. I played that a few times with my then 6-year-old son and a bunch of others (and a great GM), and a good time was had by all. We played it as a mostly-serious game of military missions, not as a cartoony game.
The Tunnels & Trolls system was nice in its simplicity. I forget most of it, but I think there were only 3 abilities, and d6s were also used for combat. My son (10 at that point) and I played the Free RPG Day version and liked the simplicity, but it was harsh and characters died easily.
The latest Doctor Who RPG system is also nice and simple, but it has many abilities and skills, so its very similar to 4e but with fewer dice. We only played that RPG once, and used pre-gens, but it seemed like a nice system for focusing on the story.
It's also been about 30 years, but I did like TSR's Top Secret. As I recall, you didn't have any ability scores, but had many skills (computers, marksmanship, driving, etc.) which were determined with percentile dice. I assume you got to choose some number of them to train on. I remember it giving a nice flavor to the character since you understood their role in the mission.
Does anyone have their own opinions on other systems to share?
Forgot to add: The drive to optimize is part of the overall desire to have an awesome character. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if that's all your players want out of the game then optimization will rule. You can try to make other aspects of the game more interesting than personal awesomeness, but some players still won't bite.
It always comes back to the fact that people want different things out of their games. You can learn to live with the disconnect or try to find a group that's closer to your alignment.
I love 4d6 drop lowest. If I didn't care about what class I played, I would just put them down in order. We always had a system set up that the character had to make a minimum total modifier between their scores, and if it wasn't high enough, the player could reroll.
I think the rolling of ability scores would be less of a big deal if the primary stat wasn't attached to ALL attack rolls and ALL damage. I really like MADness, too. It has you use your other ability scores for doing specific things, which allows you to specialize in a specific aspect of your class.
Low numbers are my favorite part of my characters.
4e is imho purely a combat system therefore one has to optimize or fail. There is a lot of things to do outside of combat but to me doesn't lend itself well to do those things like the previous systems did which I still thoroughly enjoy.
my 2 cents :D
thanks
paulm
Oh yeah, i forgot to mention that I hate having to optimize my characters. Two others that I play with are really big on that, so they're always on my case about my sub par characters, but I like my characters.