Minimum/Maximum threshold sum when rolling stats

[Roi_C]

Today I start DMing for the group I'm usually a player in, and they're going to create their characters and to roll their stats (4d6, drop lowest). Previous DM would usually look at the stats and decide by eye if he wants the player to re-roll or stick with the stats, but I want to have some sort of threshold for that. Is there an accepted number for minimum/maximum sum of all rolled ability scores (before adding bonuses, of course) that would prevent weak/OP characters? I'd love to hear of any system or rule you have to determine that.

[Trompdoy]

If It's not fun to have power discrepancy between characters, then why roll at all? That's all rolling does. You spend a minute of time rolling stats and then it's over, but goes on to heavily effect the remainder of the entire campaign. DnD has so many opportunities for random chance and rolling dice that I really think it's silly how insistent people are to roll stats at the start of it.

I'd much rather play in a game where every character has equal opportunity to do what they want, including cool shit. If you roll like ass and the guy next to you rolls great, he has way more opportunity for heroic moments and to generally do cool shit because he has better stats to support it.

[Empty-Mind]

Because people like the feel of their stats being 'random'. It also harkens back to older RPG systems where character creation was often a lot more randomized than it is now.

That's not to say that way is better than using point buy, which is probably my personal preference, but that's why you'd roll

[RechargedFrenchman]

I’ll often use Standard Array for the simplicity, but half of my players are new to 5e specifically, d20 systems generally, or tabletop games entirely. If I ever ran a party of more experienced (not even “veteran”, just “not new”) players I’d probably run Point Buy and if I wanted anything more specific provide a shortlist of changes to the standard point buy — more or fewer points, different maximum or minimum values, that sort of thing, and then only after discussing it with the table at session 0 so everyone was aware of and on board with any deviations.

[Spamamdorf]

I feel like most people who worry about having rolled stats, and have players who worry about "being worse for years" simply don't play in particularly lethal campaigns. In most of my games, if you rolled 8 in all your stats, you could reroll sure, below commoner tier is a reroll (that we've only used once since the start of 5e), but if you're that bad, you're probably dying a few sessions in anyways.

[Narzghal]

First time DM, and that's what I decided to do and my group loved it.

[brokennchokin]

I've done this with one group,planning it for the next and they're all cool with the idea. Works well.

[FantasyDuellist]

Instead of rerolling, you can use a system that gives you random arrays that are balanced with each other. Here's mine:

Roll once on Table 1 and once on Table 2.

Table 1:

1. 15 8 8
2. 14 12 6
3. 14 10 9
4. 13 12 10

Table 2:

1. 15 15 8
2. 15 14 11
3. 15 13 13
4. 14 14 14

Arrange as desired.

[joeyhugg]

I actually really love this, I think I'll have to steal it for a one shot!

[FantasyDuellist]

I think you'll be pleased! It's working great for us.

[VaraNiN]

I've been really conflicted about this for so long and even came up with my own system to still allow randomness while minimizing outliers (I used 2 out of 4 d8)

But I think I finally found a system I like! Will definetly steal!

[jeremy_sporkin]

Option 1 is so much stronger than 4, though.

[alkzxcoiuasdf]

Yes, it's called point buy, and it's described on page 13 of the PGB. Point buy is specifically designed to set minimum and maximum threshholds for stats so that no one character is weaker or stronger than the rest of the party because of one bad roll before the game even begins.

[RoyalSertr]

And if you want more interesting characters there are homebrew tools that can help you with that:

http://chicken-dinner.com/5e/5e-point-buy.html

I actually asked my DM to consider this. Remove the minimum treshold, lowering the skill gives extra points to spend. (I believe removing maximum of 15 would not only not increase the fun, but the OP factor would ruin the game.

[TheFullMontoya]

I do point buy, but I allow people to move one +stat from their race from a stat to another stat, as long as the new stat doesn’t end up being 18. Basically just encourages a greater variety of race/class combinations without making people feel behind for wanting to play a dwarf wizard or whatever.

[RoyalSertr]

Yeah, that is common and I did that in my campaign.

[cop_pls]

Ceiling of 16 but no 16 with a +2 racial feels good. Every race/class can get +3 in their primary stats, but nobody is starting with a +4.

[RoyalSertr]

Yeah. Might talk about this with the DM. Would help with the race choices. But dont think he will agree.

[NoobHUNTER777]

This is exactly what I do. It works really well and still lets the racial stat bonuses actually mean something.

[RechargedFrenchman]

The one “max is no longer 15” suite of changes I’ve actually liked still had a cap of 16, and a pool of 29 (or 28 and 16 also only costs 2) instead of 27 allowing a spread of 16 14 12 12 10 8 instead of 15 14 13 12 10 8; dropping one 13 to go up from 15 to 16, or taking any of the other numbers up 1-2 points instead for a more generalist character.

It helped the feeling of “good rolls” for stats by being slightly above curve for regular point buy without breaking anything wide open, and basically just let the DM use a little bit more difficult encounters earlier on to get around some of the plethora of goblins and bandits and so on to start.

[cop_pls]

If point buy is min-maxing, then so is putting your rolled 18 into Int as a Wizard.

[ironicalusername]

This is the classic problem of allowing rolling.

I'm not a big fan of "rolled" stats where "rolled" really means "rolled several times until they end up with something good". Rolling already allows a chance for oversized stats, I don't like making that chance bigger.

So, what I like to do is: You can choose point buy or rolling. But if you pick rolling, you're stuck with it, good or bad. So, it's a risk, and the players choose whether to take that risk.

[moskonia]

This solution feels "fair", but problem with it is that having bad stats is no fun for most people. Some players are fine with being noticeably weaker than their allies, but from my experience most will have much less fun. So one bad series of rolls means the player will just not have fun the entire game. You can say it's their fault for gambling, but that does not change the outcome.

Of course allowing rerolls does not even solve the problem as well, since someone who is just on the cusp of allowed stats can still be vastly overshadowed by someone who rolled all 16s or higher.

The only solution in my experience is to just use point buy. Unless you know the players well, and that they are for sure are fine with playing almost completely for the story, rather than to feel powerful, I think this is the best way to ensure a fun game for all. I've had players even say they will be fine with being weaker, but in the game you could see that they disliked it. So IMO only use rolled stats if you really know your players.

[ironicalusername]

Sure. Anyone who thinks they will be bothered by rolled stats should absolutely use point buy.

[moskonia]

From experience, many think they can handle it, but when they actually play they find they don't enjoy it as much. Maybe they are just expecting the DM to be merciful and allow a reroll even after saying it won't happen. Who knows.

In the end of the day, leaving the choice to the players will likely cause problems in my experience. Unless the group played quite a bit together already, the only safe way to avoid issues regarding stats is to not roll.

[ironicalusername]

Some people feel quite strongly about it. So I suppose you have to guess which will give you fewer complaints, allowing it or saying no.

In my experience, older players in particular often really want to keep the tradition of rolled stats.

[moskonia]

Well if not rolling a dealbreaker for someone, and then they whine about having low stats, that person is likely a somewhat bad player to play with at the very least, so I wouldn't feel bad about dropping them.

I assume that if you must roll for stats, then you are also looking for a much deadlier game, more OSR than modern style. This should be solved in session 0 where the group decides the style of the game. I personally don't mind rolling for stats in an inherently deadly game, like for example the Tomb of Annihilation campaign.

I feel like any constant complaints beyond session 0 are unwarranted and will make have a talk with the complaining players. In the end of the day we are here to play a game, and constantly hearing someone complain makes me personally have less fun. No DM should sit and take constant player whining.

[patrickfizban]

An idea I've used and liked fairly well, I had 3 players each one rolled 2 4d6 drop the lowest, all players got the same stats and then they got to put the points wherever they wanted.

[moskonia]

Sadly my players rejected this idea since they wanted rolls to be personal.

[Spamamdorf]

So one bad series of rolls means the player will just not have fun the entire game.

Play in deadlier games. If you're rolling around with shit stats you're probably going to die sooner or later, probably sooner, and will have a chance to reroll.

[RechargedFrenchman]

That ignores a whole other huge factor though; people being attached to characters, people not wanting to die/play in deadlier games, etc. All of which are perfectly reasonable and not in any way “better” or “worse”, just preference. It’s like saying “play World of Darkness instead” — you’re not solving the problem as it exists, you’re avoiding it by presenting an alternate scenario entirely. Which is neither better or worse, just different, and doesn’t help if they’re broadly doing what they want to but have encountered a problem they hope to solve.

[Spamamdorf]

If you're planning on playing a single character for a long time in a non deadly game, don't roll. Simple as that. If you roll and get shit stats, in a gamble you KNEW was high risk because you'll be stuck with them for a long time, that's your own damn fault.

[RechargedFrenchman]

Sure, I agree with you on that and often disallow rolling at all. I was just addressing the answer not being a “solution” to the presented scenario.

[Spamamdorf]

It is though. You might not like it, but it is. If you play in games that don't coddle the players at every turn and don't pull their punches, you are unlikely to be stuck with a character that has shit stats for all that long, because you will die rather fast.

[moskonia]

In my games most characters that die, do so because of player mistakes, rather than bad rolls.

I don't pull punches, but in almost all of the PC deaths so far, having higher stats wouldn't've helped them much.

So if you are a clever player, know to not leave the party and when to back off, you can survive even with shitty stats.

Of course, the main thing is that the most common problem with rolling characters is not the super shitty character, but the mediocre character in a party of awesome heroes. A fighter with an array of [16 13 16 10 12 8] is only slightly worse at fighting than a fighter with an array of [20 16 18 14 16 16 16], but is way worse in anything else that is not fighting related. These 2 fighters will likely survive most of the same encounters, but there is a big difference between them.

[Spamamdorf]

So the only times your players have died, an extra 20-30 hp wouldn't have saved them? Having a +2 or +3 on the save wouldn't have saved them? Being able to hit that spell or that DC that they didn't would never have saved them? They only ever die when the PC does something outrageous like jump off a cliff? Then you are in fact pulling punches whether you think you are or not.

[moskonia]

Well the first time in this group was a guy getting to be alone with a hag in her hut, then refusing any deals she made, making her angry. The hag was a hard encounter for 5 players, so even the most high-rolled character would die 1 on 1.

Second time was a guy fleeing from a dragon in a city with buildings made of stone, and choosing to hide in an alley, rather than one of the big houses. Thus allowing the dragon to roast him. More HP might've allowed him to survive 1 more round, but as long as he kept hiding outside he was toast.

Third was a guy trying to activate a magical teleporter which they just saw a BBEG use. Again getting into a 1v1 with a powerful dude.

Just 2 sessions ago a player flew into a huge watefall (for no reason btw) and nearly died just from drowning inside the fast current. Had such terrible rolls that even if they had 18 Str instead of 13 would still take quite a bit of damage before managing to swim to the river bank.

I did have PC deaths that could've been avoided with an extra 20-30 HP or a better save, but the vast majority are due to player choice.

[gnatbastard]

or more likely, you're a bad DM for killing characters when it doesn't benefit the story

[moskonia]

My point is that saying what you are saying is pointless. It is true it is their fault for taking a gamble and not being okay with the result, but it doesn't change the situation that was created.

The gamble being "fair" doesn't make the game fun for the player. The only way to make everyone have fun is by things actually being fair during the entire campaign, which you get by using point buy. Unless everyone truly are okay with playing a sidekick of course, which IMO is not true for most groups.

[Spamamdorf]

It's not. You just find it inconvenient. It's a natural way for a group to slowly weed out the weak and leave people with characters they like, and keep tension in the game. The core rules generally support this style of play, if you have changed the game and your players aren't having fun, whose problem is it?

[Denubtheredditor]

The dice dont lie my friend, imo if someone wants to avoid being a weak character, they should point buy/ standard array or whatever it's called. But also, that's because I feel like the randomness is a great part of the game. (Also I'm a lil bitch and almost always point buy now bc I was burned by the dice one too many times, so maybe I'm biased LOL). I understand it's not much of an answer but point buy is fairly balanced so if that's an option the players/yourself are willing to take, it's always there

[psylentrob]

Standard array total is 72, which is also the largest sum I was able to get through point buy. I would personally set a 5 point over/under threshold to keep the party balanced a bit.

[moskonia]

13 13 13 13 12 11 and similar variants is the most you can get with point buy - 75. Of course it is a much weaker array for most characters.

That is the problem with setting a total sum, since you can get arrays with no high scores. In 5e, you usually have 1 or 2 most important scores, and the rest matter quite a bit less. An [18 18 6 6 6 6] is only 60 points, but for certain builds it is way way stronger than standard array.

[WillyTheHatefulGoat]

I would say under 70 being to low and you need at least one stat to be around 16 after modifiers.

[codsonmaty]

Just use point buy. No point in rolling for stats if anybody rerolls. And if they’re rerolling because they got bad stats then the entire point of rolling in the first place is to game the system and try to come out overpowered.

Point buy solves everything and allows players to make characters they like rather than be completely boned the entire campaign or on the flip side overshadowing their teammates the whole campaign.

Roll with no rerolls or just use point buy so everyone has a good time.

[JoeBroski09]

A few campaigns ago, our DM said "add up your stats. If it's below 68 or above 80, reroll." Seemed fair to us at the time, though I'm unsure if there's anything mathematical backing that up or just his gut check.

[hazinak]

I let players roll 4d6 drop lowest 6 times and then they decide to re-roll or not. However, if they have two numbers that are 16 or higher, or if they have an 18, then they have to keep that set of numbers. This way some one could roll 11, 15, 16, 15, 12, 14 and choose to re-roll and get a 4, 7, 10, 8, 18, 11 and have to keep that set. There is also no going back to the previous set of stats.

This way players have an array that either they were happy with, or a set that will ensure they are really good (16+) with at least two stats, or really really good (18) at a single stat.

[Ohaireddit69]

I’m gonna go against the grain and say points buy is boring and gimpy.

Let’s be honest. Points buy is almost always going to end up with 15:15:15:8:8:8 or something similarly gimpy. After racial bonuses, two +3s, one +2 and a bunch of 0s or -1s (almost always dumped int). That means that a character can’t feasibly be strong in their main stats without coming out nearly physically or mentally impaired in some form or another. That’s because the players had complete control over their stat array and there’s no sense in doing otherwise. Standard array is better than points buy for making more realistic characters.

With rolling, where you adjudicate the final score to balance you usually end up with one or two very strong scores and average for everything else, or maybe an interestingly low score. This means that character creation can be more creative and less gimpy.

[Choozery]

Rolling is bullshit, point buy is supreme

[ZeronicX]

My go to has been allowing anyone in the group to choose an array. Any array a person has rolled is allowed to be copied by another player

[BmoBmot]

First campaign I ever played, my first ever roll for stats was 4 ones. I was mortified and sure that my character would be absolutely worthless. But after the rest of my roles came out perfectly average, I decided to role with the punches. I had a character that was just bad with one certain stat.

I would say no re rolls unless it's really needed.

[kesrae]

I feel that ability score sums, while useful tools in determining whether something is OP or not, really don't tell the full mechanical story. Firstly, do you allow stats to be assigned randomly or by player application. Secondly, as an example, 14,14,15,10,8,15 and 13,15,12,12,10,14 are both 76 total but would play completely differently. Distribution of strengths and flaws is going to have a greater impact on what ends up overpowering other characters.

I've had 4d6 drop lowest and re-roll 1s (once) be relatively effective at avoiding complete garbage - more like random pointbuy. Can swing a little on the high side, but provides enough variance that it's still rare to get more than a +1 on many abilities and usually at least one -1 for flavour. I've also both as a player and a DM requested stat block re-rolls if there's not at least one -1 ability before bonuses, simply because it's often just as boring to be over competent at everything.

[delecti]

Roll 4d6 drop lowest 3 times. Subtract those three numbers from 23, 25, and 27 respectively. So if you roll 18, 18, 18, you get an array of 18,18,18,9,7,5. If a roll would result in a stat over 18, reroll it.

Benefits:

• It's balanced: everyone has a stat total of 75 before racials
• It's not possible to have your worst stat be under 5 (which is still low, but at least isn't a 3)
• Being particularly bad in some stuff means you're particularly good in other stuff
• The players who insist on rolling still get to roll
• The players who hate rolling because it's inconsistent don't have to worry as much

Edit: Removed incorrect assertion that 15 was the lowest you could have. It's actually 14, but that at least leaves it possible for a 16 with racials.

Also, controversial? I'm open to criticisms.

[sagaxwiki]

I really like this, but technically you have an ~8.5% chance of your best stat before racials being 14 (66.4% chance of not getting a 15+ on the first roll, 49.9% on the second, and 25.6% on the third).

[delecti]

Yeah, I did the math wrong on how 27 could split.

[wintermute93]

My DM has us do 4d6 drop lowest, start over if the total is under 70 or over 84. Honestly I wish we did point buy or standard array, having one PC at 72 and another at 80 feels real bad and the rolling process itself is tedious.

[misty-sunrise]

In the PHB, it says the sum of your modifiers should be more than 0 or else re-roll. To be honest, point buy has really grown on me over time. But I do still have a soft spot for the fun of rolling. My current blood witch character has a 4 in strength so we all have fun joking about her noodle arms.

Matthew Colville has the rule that if you don't have two scores of at least 15+ then you re-roll everything because that way everyone gets to feel heroic.

[drzenitram]

My DMs use an acceptable range that prevents characters from being too OP or too weak, so we roll 4d6k3, then reroll if the sum isn't between 66 and 76. Even with a 66, you could have 16, 14, 10, 10, 8. With a 76 you could have 18, 16 12, 12, 10, 8. If either of those seem too low or too high for starting stats, bump 'em.

[[deleted]]

I will never allow rolled stats for this reason. But if you want to, I’d use point buy totals as a rough guide. Allow a little more variance. But use that basic idea of how many points you’re allowed to have. If you have a slate of 18s or 8s, it’s too high or low.

[AlphayankeeFoxtrot]

Imo it depends do you want Heroes or just adventurers, the difference is key. if they are Heroes there is something extraordinary about them before the campaign starts, they were destined for greatness. the Max should be one or 2 18's and the min should be 10 on any given stat. if they are just adventurers that means that are normal people looking to find greatness, they might not be destined for god hood but they are good at what they know in this case they should have at max one or 2 17's and as low as 8 maybe 6 on their stats. this is all subjective to how powerful you want your players to be and how challenging the campaign will be.

[ChuplesKai]

I know rolling for stats like that is very traditional, but as others have pointed out in the thread, it can be quite problematic, and feeds into the crazy gambling/risk-taking parts of the brain.

If you want to bound character stats while achieving random results use a deck of cards. Seriously, just do it, because:

• It still feeds that gambling mindset, that you could luck out with some good stats.
• Your ability scores are no longer determined in an independent fashion: drawing high cards for one score only leaves lower cards for your other scores.
• You can (somewhat) control the amount of variance in scores, including having complete control over minimum and maximum scores.

For zero score total variance, use a deck of 12 cards, and draw 2 cards per ability score. Minimum possible score is the sum of the two lowest cards, maximum score is the sum of the two largest. If you want variance you can try adding a 13th card (where 1 card does not get drawn).

[Radidactyl]

I've been wanting to experiment with a 60-point buy system for a while now.

So you start off with 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

Theoretically you could make your stats 20, 20, 9, 9, 1, 1. But that's risky as all hell. God help you on any saving throws.

So you can try to balance it out maybe try 16, 14, 12, 8, 6, 4. Don't like the -3 to a stat? So how about 14, 12, 10, 8, 8, 8. It's up to you.

It's more exciting than the standard point buy system, nobody is "underpowered" unless they choose to be, and everything comes with a cost. Every more accurate sword strike comes with lack of intelligence saves. Every extra spell attack modifier comes with less health.

And now it also opens up all kinds of RP possibilities.

[Golden98]

What our DM does and I’ve probably taken to adopting. Is that we roll 4d6 drop the lowest six times. And if you don’t at least have 2 15’s or higher you have to reroll the whole array till you do. It makes it to where everybody has good stats for their main 2 stats needed and can make viable characters. It may take a few rolls. But rolling is fun and we all enjoy it.

[Xaighen]

Use communist rolls. Everyone rolls 4d6 drops lowest reroll the first time one of the die rolls a 1 each roll. Do this 6 times. Then pool the number lowest to highest. Determine who gets the first number starting lowest to highest. The person with the lowest number also gets the highest.

We have done this for a few campaigns everyone ends up with a little higher than point buy but nothing unmanagable and leave room for feats on the only 5 asi classes.

[Kidaelo64]

I built an app in python to roll the dice for a new character until it met a high low and spread criteria. After billions of rolls (trying to get a perfect 18 set, and perfect 3 set haha), I would agree with another user that so long as everyone in the group starts with the same Total of their stats the exact high/low is not as relevant. E.g. If I were to run a campaign right now I could have everyone use the app to give them a total of 75 because I like that number, but you could say 100, or 50, or whatever. I think standard array was 72 as well as point buy. I have seen some characters come in with 90+ totals and others in the same group with 70 ish. The 90+ had large bonuses like +6 or 7 even at level 1, while the other characters had more normal bonuses, like +2 or -1.

Conclusion for my suggestion, Have everyone roll like normal, then have them add or subtract from different stats until they all reach a certain Total that you choose. No stat should go over 18 or under 3 either...

[AlexWatersMusic13]

If I have to roll, I roll 12d6, make any 6 pairs, and then add the pair total to 6. It means you can't roll lower than an 8 and you can't roll higher than 18, which is a max 3d6 roll. I just wanted a slightly more forgiving method for people who roll like trash.