Is rolling for stats the true way?

>roll 6 numbers, then allocate them to the stats you want. that way you still have a choice as to which stats you want to be high, and yet you still have random numbers to work with.
That's what most people already do when rolling stats dude.

>People who skew the dice are not rollfags
Yes they are.
>3d6 down the line (arrange as you please is also acceptable but less fun) is the way
That hasn't been the way since 2e, and even there you had options that ignored it.

>this hasn't been the way since 2e

You mean the last decent D&D edition?

>even there you had options that ignored it

Rules to help little kids are not core

what a stupid normie

Rolling is for grognards, you have nothing to be ashamed of OP

But that's how real life works
Some are born to be great, while others are born worthless trash

>You mean the last decent D&D edition?
2e introduced a lot of shit that ended up being bastardized in 3.PF user. It's still good but it's not the godlike edition you make it out to be that'd be B/X.
>Rules to help little kids are not core
Oh you sweet child.

This a game moron, not real life.

>he thinks anything outside of OG is good
>what a faggot
kill yourself!

stop forcing your weeboo Gary-Stu power fantasies, soyboy
go back to your safespace

I like 3d6 down the line, but I also like fair but random stats too.

Like instead, roll X number of times and each stat is linked to a number. You get +1 in that stat. Then roll X another number of times and you get -1 in those stats. Everyone has the same number of rolls for both positive and negative, so everyone's bonuses are the same in total, but some people could have low stats with high stats, or some could have average jack of all trade stats and so on. I like the concept anyway.

I'm not the dude defending rolled stats though.

You faggots will never know the joy of rolling-up a Monk with 20s in strength, dexterity, and constitution

Depends on the system.

In something where character creation is fast and stats have diminished importance like OD&D or B/X, rolling speeds up the process, especially if done down the line.

In something where stats matter a lot, point buy is more fair.

/thread

>Shit wisdom
Oh man, I love having shit saves and low AC.

he had average Wisdom
his Charisma and Intelligence were garbage tho

So on top of being easier to hit and having no way of using his chi powers reliably, he's also dumb as a brick and has the charisma of a used diaper soaked in gasoline.

You fucked up by focusing STR instead of WIS man.

The point of rolling is speed: you roll the dice and note the result. Done. In point-buy you need to adjudicate high and low stats and see what is most suitable for your character, making it a slower process.
However, when you apply this to reality, it don't always work that way: you have people re-rolling copious amounts of time, making rolling a very slow method, and in retrospect a min-maxer will point-buy so fast, that you don't even had time to open the book.
Both methods are fair regarding game mechanics, and it is entirely dependant of the group. The disparity in the stats vallue between rolling or point-buy, will be anecdotal at best, save a few cases, where someone really rolled amazingly, but again, unlikely.
In the end, the only right method is the method that works for you group.

I did roll monk with four 18s

Was still shit and got outclasses even by the druid's pet

>Goes first
>3 ancient gear castles
sigh

Varies for campaign tone. If we're supposed to be a crack squad of high tier badasses, rolling down the line is kinda shit because you pretty much always wind up with completely whack party balance. If you're playing something less serious, like MAID or some other jokey one-shot, it can be pretty fun. Dealing with the hand you're dealt can be an interesting part of the game and coming up with a personality and background on the fly to fit around what you got handed is an interesting thought exercise.

Generally I just use an array and work with that, but whatever's cool.

>witcher 3 is a roleplaying game, you take role of Geralt the witcher and sometimes Ciri

Exactly. Only snowflakes who need to play their donut steel bullshit OC's ever need to create a character. The characters that have been created for us are how the designers intended the game to be played. Rolling stats vs. point buy is a stupid argument. If you're taking the game seriously at all, you shouldn't be doing either.

>everyone rolls for their stats
>18 18 16 15 14 14
>18 12 12 11 10 10
>15 15 12 11 10 8
>14 13 13 13 9 8
>13 13 12 12 11 8

If I'm going to
>allow rerolls to lowest party members
>give the PCs with the weakest stats more Ability Score Increases to compensate
>give more magic items to the weaker characters
gonna be honest here, I might as well just use point buy.

Or I could let the dice fall where they may, and let the guy who rolled the highest ones dominate the game and basically be the main character while everyone else is the supporting cast.

Point buy is more predictable, and results in usually higher stats.

The straight 3d6/stat roll of D&D is going to result in an average of 10-11. (10.5) Thus why the stat bonuses are why they are the way they are.

Most variants of D&D stat rolling are boosting the average result. (4d6 drop lowest, reroll 1s, etc.) Yet that randomness remains.

Point-buy is generally preferred, because it allows you to build from a concept with known variables.

Random rolls, though is what a lot of the system is designed around.

>Point buy is more predictable, and results in usually higher stats.
>The straight 3d6/stat roll of D&D is going to result in an average of 10-11. (10.5) Thus why the stat bonuses are why they are the way they are.
What

What you just said is true; almost every video game in existence except for puzzle games like Tetris are RPGs in some way. Even sports games have you taking the role of one of the players.

For D&D 3rd and Parthfinder:
Point buy, all of your stats start at 10, and cost to improve. And can be reduced to 7 for a slight bonus.

Thus, there is no risk of a sub-10 stat unless you want it to be.

With straight 3d6, the lowest possible score is 3. (Before racial bonuses.) This is as unlikely as a score of 18. Both having a single chance out of over a hundred. Much like 7 is the most likely outcome of 2d6, 10 and 11 are the most likely outcome of 3d6. A large subset of possible results total up to those two numbers, and they are equal in probability.

However, without moderative things that a lot of groups do (eg: 4d6 drop lowest, rerolling 1s.) there is an equal chance of sub 10 scores as there is for above 11 scores.

Now, the average of 3d6 being 10.5, is why in D&D the stats go up with each even number, with 10-11 as the zero-point for which there are no bonuses.

Here's one important facts that you're missing. The game assumes that you have a 16+ in the stats that your class uses, which is also why Wizard (who only uses INT) is better than Monk (who uses STR, DEX, CON, and WIS).

Rolling 10's and 11's is just as bad as rolling sub-10 stats as far as the game is concerned, and that's not even getting into the feats and abilities that require you to have a certain stat level before you're even allowed to take it.

Nothing you described at all resembles point buy.

You just described a slightly more forgiving form of rolling for stats.

The game being poorly balanced on an absolute level is well know, even by people who like the system.

Though, the Wizard will want Con as well. Dex too since his spells generally don't have Max-Dex for their AC bonus. Especially against foes that know what he is and -should- realistically be trying to kill him asap.

And Monk is pretty well agreed to be underpowered in almost every incarnation it has, not entirely because of its MAD status.

Not saying what is best in the system, just what the two choices are going to get you.

And those born to be trash don't become adventurers in the first place

If I'm going to
>allow rerolls to lowest party members
>give the PCs with the weakest stats more Ability Score Increases to compensate
>give more magic items to the weaker characters

This is a complete argument, and a good one.
There are people who are obsessed with fairness but refuse to simply give everyone equal points, when that's clearly what needs to happen to achieve that goal.

The thing is, there's a difference between a want and a need.

I Wizard with shit DEX/CON is still going to backhand most challenges presented in front of them and deal with their weak physical stats to boot due to the versatility that their spell list grants them by default.

By contrast, the Monk needs so much just to reach baseline and even if they end up with 20's in every relevant stat, they're still going to get fucked by their class features, which don't synergize with one another at all, and how expensive their kit is due to the fact that they need a magic item that's more expensive than most magic weapons.

>It's called roleplaying, you have to take on a role.

Yes, and I’ll take on the role I’ve made for myself you milk-livered yellow bellied spineless soysucker.

>more magic items
Unless those items are specifically keyed to the weaker players because of Plot Contrivance that's not a real fix.
>more ability increases to compensate for lower starting stats
We Donnel now

You want to play a more random character, roll. You want to build a character concept you have, point-buy.

I think it's only an argument for people who have only ever played one game and it's a stupid-assed argument. I don't like roll-under mechanics for a couple reasons, but I'm not gonna shit my pants over it.

Yeah but I'm playing a game. I want to contribute to my party and be in on the fun

/thread
jesus christ

Rolling for stats is the way.

And again, that being the nature of the games math and those two classes designs is besides the point of what rolling stats and selecting stats will get you.

The fact that higher scores are better than lower scores is why many group that do roll for stats use things that push the likely results of the dice toward higher results.

Even just rerolling ones tilts the probability of getting an above 10 score by reducing the viable sub10 results a good deal.

anydice.com/program/e927

Just using reroll 1s boosts the most likely result up to 12. Using highest of 4 returns an average of 13. Using both pushes it up to 14.

With a 25 point buy, you can get two 16s, a 14, and 3 10s, or a single 18, 14,13, and 3 10s before racial stats or reducing a dump stat.

Though, again, Monk is well known to be entirely too MAD, and Casters entirely too SAD. This has nothing to do with the stat-generation method.

The point that you continue to miss is that if the game assumes that your class has a 16+ in their primary stat(s), having an average of 10.5 (10-11) per roll when rolling for your stats is worthless because you'd need to roll above average just to reach baseline for your class, which only becomes harder the more stats your class uses.

Wizards being SAD and Monks being MAD is to show how flawed rolling for stats becomes once you actually sit down at the table and realize that depending on the class and how lucky you are, it's trivially easy to skew the balance completely by accident, especially since there's nothing stopping you from rolling above average on every roll.

By contrast, point buy only allows you to go so high or so low when it comes to your stats, so it's generally much easier to create a balanced party and much less likely to create imbalance issues.

>Roll stats as bace but arrange them how you'd like.
>Can re roll any stat but you have to take the results of the next roll, even if it's worse.

Rate my group Veeky Forums

If you're going to skew the results to produce a higher chance at rolling high stats, you might as well just cut the bullshit and use either point buy or an array so that you can start off with either one 17 or two 16's after racial modifiers are applied.

And again, Monk is a biased choice, because it will still suck even with point-buy. As he isn't going to his your bar of 16 in 4 stats even with point buy.

With the exception of a race that gives two of those stats and a negative to one of the two off stats. Such as Dwarf. Or giving up your extra feat as human in Pathfinder for another +2.

By comparison, Barbarian can get along with just decent Str and Con. Dex is nice since they don't get heavier armor but have the meat to take hits.

Fighter can specialize in Str or Dex, and most Rogues just go full Dex, as they need Int less for skill points since they have a high floor. Maybe Cha if they're trying to play face, and the GM forces rolls even with good roleplay.

The casters only "need" their casting stat, as much as a fighter only "needs" their damage/to hit stat.

Monk is shit because it gets so little out of having abilities tied to so many stats. Ontop of that, RAW they have to pay more for a similar enhancement bonus to their attacks, which caps out lower, and takes up a slot used by other very useful items.

Yeah, comparing Monk to Wizard is the absolute height of stat disparity, but it is not the only reason monk is terrible, and it isn't solved by using point-buy over rolling.

You're seriously missing the forest for the trees man. Even if we compare Fighters against Wizards instead, you're still going to run into the same issues that keeps rolling from being a viable option; some classes need more stats than others and rolling anything less than 16+ for your primary stat(s) is just as bad as rolling sub-10 stats.
>The casters only "need" their casting stat, as much as a fighter only "needs" their damage/to hit stat.
I'd argue that every martial in the game requires having good STR (for melee damage), DEX (for ranged attacks), CON (for extra HP), and WIS (for perception and Willpower) just to stay relevant vs. casters, who can outright ignore rolls by casting a spell using one of many spell slots at their disposal.

And in Dark Heresy, rolling a 2 for your stats means your character is going to really suck at anything that uses that stat. Especially compared to an 10-15.
Having a base 17/22/27% chance of success at it off the bat depending on homeworld. Ultimately a 37/42/47% chance after a large amount of XP spent.

While in an entirely point-buy system like shadow run, you're going to want a 12 in anything your character is actually supposed to be good at. Or, in the WoD systems, you'll want at least a die pool of 4 to have a solid chance of success at an action.

There are optimization points, there will always -be- optimization points. You're trying to drag Martial/Caster disparity into the argument, when the existence of it does not in fact alter the argument at hand in the first place.

And, again, I'd argue that you're underplaying the need of other stats for a caster. As bad as Fighter's will save is, so too is Wizard/Sorcerer's Fort and Reflex, and they don't have the HP to offset failures on those dice, even if a Fighter's failed will save might shut them down or turn them against the party, the wizard's failed save might just outright kill them immediately. (And not just from save or die spells.)

>You're trying to drag Martial/Caster disparity into the argument, when the existence of it does not in fact alter the argument at hand in the first place.
And you keep focusing on on the martial/caster divide instead of focusing on the actual meat of the argument, which was, for the umpteenth time, rolling anything less than 16+ for your primary stat(s) is just as bad as rolling sub-10 for your stats. I'm not even talking about from an optimization standpoint either, I'm talking baseline required to actually play the class without being dead weight to the rest of the party.

Yet you're trying to argue that rolling is still somehow viable when you have to skew the averages just to lessen the chance of disparity between PC's within the same party.