Character creation question.

[Ithai]

How many keepers have their players roll 3 d6's for stats? If you don't do it this way is there a base stat and point buy up that you use? The idea of rolling d6's is kind of exciting but when you want to play a certain class di rolls can be a bit too random.

[Treebore]

How many keepers have their players roll 3 d6's for stats? If you don't do it this way is there a base stat and point buy up that you use? The idea of rolling d6's is kind of exciting but when you want to play a certain class di rolls can be a bit too random.

Personally I don't really care how my players create their characters. I realized a long time ago I can kill their PC no matter how "uber" it is whenever I want. Its not killing them that is the challenge.

So I offer several options in my House rules:

CHARACTER GENERATION:

Create characters however you wish within the 3-18 range, then racial modifiers. If you want a kind of random method then use either 10+2d4 or 4d6, reroll 1's and 2's until all dice are a minimum of 3, take best 3, arrange stats as desired.

I believe in high stat characters. If you don't I suggest you do for my games. Low stat characters will be very obviously less capable in comparison to high stat characters. So if you want to use low stats, go ahead, but don't complain about it later.

[Sir Ironside]

I've used many variations dependent on the group. The one that gets used most often is randomly roll 7 times then let them put the numbers where they want. Most of my groups already have a pretty good idea what race/class they want to play and I'd rather have them happy with their character than being forced into playing something they don't want. (Where is the fun in that?)

[kreider204]

4d6, discard low die, 6 times, arrange as you like

[Arduin]

I give players 74 points to allocate. That is equal to the average result of 4d6 drop lowest over 6 stats. That way they can build what they desire. Or, they can take the chance of really rolling 4d6 drop lowest.

[Traveller]

4d6, drop the lowest, assign where desired. If even after this the player isn't satisfied, they can take the d20 Star Wars standard package (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) in place of their die rolls.

[Fizz]

One method i like using is a grid. You roll 6 sets of attributes, all using 3d6, and arrange the results in a 6x6 grid. The player can then use any row, column, or either diagonal of that grid as his score set. It gives them a decent change of getting a medium-high score or two for the character they want, but keeps uber scores (17-18) rare (though not as rare as pure 3d6).

-Fizz

[AGNKim]

Stats don't matter that much. The difference between a 9 STR and an 18 STR is a 15% better chance to hit stuff (and some more damage). It's not exactly 'just pick your scores', but close. In pick up games I usually say, "Your scores are 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 and 8. Arrange as desired." I like having an 8 just so players will have a weakness, which can be fun.

[Arduin]

Stats don't matter that much. The difference between a 9 STR and an 18 STR is a 15% better chance to hit stuff (and some more damage).

Plus, the one with 18 str can lift twice as much weight...

[pawndream]

Rolling 3d6 for stats works if your players are in for that kind of game, but many players want more control over their characters. I think 3d6 makes for an interesting game, but I usually give players three choices to build their character and let them decide what they want to do:

1. Standard Array: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 arrange as they like
2. Point Buy
3. Roll 4d6, drop lowest arrange as they like

That way everyone gets to choose their own chargen method and feel good about their character.

Stats really don't make that huge of a difference so it's easier to just let players build the character the way they want.

[mbeacom]

4d6, discard low die, 6 times, arrange as you like

Same here. I'll allow players to use an array if they're unwilling to accept the fates of the dice (which doesn't bode well for someone playing a game based largely on random action resolution). Or in rare cases with players who need high scores to have fun, even just allow them to pick their own stats without dice at all. I'd rather just let them choose whatever scores they want than sit and pretend that the dice actually matter by giving large numbers of rolls, rerolling low numbers etc.

[jdizzy001]

3d6 players may reroll 1's (stats average 11-14). Roll 6 times arrange how they want.

[Relaxo]

I use either 3d6, reroll all ones, 4d6 drop lowest, or 2d6+6

[NJPDX]

I've always been a 3d6 reroll 1s kind of guy in B/X D&D and the numbers work out mostly the same in C&C (based on the spread of modifiers). In AD&D you sort of had to use "roll 4d6 drop lowest" if you ever actually wanted your players to be able to play character classes like the Ranger, Paladin, Druid, etc. and the attribute bonuses didn't kick until you got to 15.

Furthermore, I've always allowed characters to get permanent stat increases by letting them quest for certain tomes, or granting them a magical item that boosts a stat as they get to higher levels. In short that stats don't end up meaning that much in my games. Gear and items end up having a much greater impact on player power and that allows me to keep the power curve where I want it, without having to resort to excessive fiddling with things like monster stats to compensate.

[kreider204]

It's interesting to hear the opinion that stats don't matter that much. Back in the day, we all obsessed about them, but I think C&C makes them less important, thanks to the prime / secondary distinction. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of getting rid of the numerical stats altogether and just using prime / secondary / tertiary attributes.

[Treebore]

It's interesting to hear the opinion that stats don't matter that much. Back in the day, we all obsessed about them, but I think C&C makes them less important, thanks to the prime / secondary distinction. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of getting rid of the numerical stats altogether and just using prime / secondary / tertiary attributes.

No, they have never been important. DM's only made them be, because of the focus they put on them. I realized back in my 2E days its very easy to kill characters, even when all their attributes are 18's (did that). Since then I haven't really cared how a characters attributes are created, as long as they stay in the 3 to 18 range, before racial modifiers. If anything high attributes make it easier for me to keep them alive, so its easier to keep the campaign going longer. It still didn't make it easy enough, so I developed Fate points from a 3E book. Probably the DMG 2 or the Unearthed Arcana book. So now players have a pretty decent amount of control over if/when their character dies, and then decide on Raise Dead, Reincarnation, etc... or to just stay dead and play a new PC. Granted, this isn't gritty/deadly enough for some. Thats fine. If they want to play in my game and have it be more lethal, all they have to do is refuse to use their luck points, which I have yet to see anyone refuse to do.

[NJPDX]

It's interesting to hear the opinion that stats don't matter that much. Back in the day, we all obsessed about them, but I think C&C makes them less important, thanks to the prime / secondary distinction. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of getting rid of the numerical stats altogether and just using prime / secondary / tertiary attributes.

In AD&D this was somewhat true. You just didn't get bonuses until you hit 15, and if you had a sub 16 prime it could put you at a serious disadvantage especially as a thief or magic user ... not to mention the difference between a "measly" 17 strength and 18/xx if you were a fighter, but I think this is why the DMG makes it clear that the default method for rolling up a character is "4d6 drop lowest" in AD&D - perhaps to differentiate it enough from Basic and Original D&D so that TSR didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties anymore?

Unfortunately I think we all sort of got conditioned to "needing" those high stats even when they are no longer strictly as necessary in a game like C&C - which shares a lot in common with Basic D&D's nuts and bolts (at least from an ability score perspective).

[Treebore]

It's interesting to hear the opinion that stats don't matter that much. Back in the day, we all obsessed about them, but I think C&C makes them less important, thanks to the prime / secondary distinction. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of getting rid of the numerical stats altogether and just using prime / secondary / tertiary attributes.

In AD&D this was somewhat true. You just didn't get bonuses until you hit 15, and if you had a sub 16 prime it could put you at a serious disadvantage especially as a thief or magic user ... not to mention the difference between a "measly" 17 strength and 18/xx if you were a fighter, but I think this is why the DMG makes it clear that the default method for rolling up a character is "4d6 drop lowest" in AD&D - perhaps to differentiate it enough from Basic and Original D&D so that TSR didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties anymore?

Unfortunately I think we all sort of got conditioned to "needing" those high stats even when they are no longer strictly as necessary in a game like C&C - which shares a lot in common with Basic D&D's nuts and bolts (at least from an ability score perspective).

While I agree that is a problem, I think its a pretty mild problem compared to DM's who think characters having high attributes some how breaks the game. How it does that I have no idea. I've been running games for over 2 decades now with characters created however players wish, so plenty of high attributes, and its still pretty easy to kill them. So I am still mystified by the DM's who make that claim of high attributes breaking their game. It just does not happen in my experience. So I wonder if its all simply misconception. Yet I can't see how that would be either. So I continue to wonder how that is.

[NJPDX]

It's interesting to hear the opinion that stats don't matter that much. Back in the day, we all obsessed about them, but I think C&C makes them less important, thanks to the prime / secondary distinction. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of getting rid of the numerical stats altogether and just using prime / secondary / tertiary attributes.

In AD&D this was somewhat true. You just didn't get bonuses until you hit 15, and if you had a sub 16 prime it could put you at a serious disadvantage especially as a thief or magic user ... not to mention the difference between a "measly" 17 strength and 18/xx if you were a fighter, but I think this is why the DMG makes it clear that the default method for rolling up a character is "4d6 drop lowest" in AD&D - perhaps to differentiate it enough from Basic and Original D&D so that TSR didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties anymore?

Unfortunately I think we all sort of got conditioned to "needing" those high stats even when they are no longer strictly as necessary in a game like C&C - which shares a lot in common with Basic D&D's nuts and bolts (at least from an ability score perspective).

While I agree that is a problem, I think its a pretty mild problem compared to DM's who think characters having high attributes some how breaks the game. How it does that I have no idea. I've been running games for over 2 decades now with characters created however players wish, so plenty of high attributes, and its still pretty easy to kill them. So I am still mystified by the DM's who make that claim of high attributes breaking their game. It just does not happen in my experience. So I wonder if its all simply misconception. Yet I can't see how that would be either. So I continue to wonder how that is.

I don't think it breaks the game, it just means a little more leg-work for the GM adjusting saving throw difficulties, plus monster and NPC stats to get the right balance, so encounters and obstacles are (more or less) as challenging as you envision when you are fleshing out an adventure to run people through.

Honestly I think it all just comes down to whatever a group and GM is comfortable with; there is no right or wrong way to do it, but there are some subtle game-play differences between high and average stat characters and the kinds of challenges they can tackle with all other variables held equal.

Maybe the differences I'm talking about really only matter in a sandbox style game - which I prefer to run - where there's less narrative and a lot more randomness?

[Treebore]

Could be. Like I said, I'm still trying to figure it out.

[Lord Dynel]

My table method is to roll 3d6, 12 times, and take the best six scores. It works pretty well for my guys (and gals).

[Dracyian]

From Amazing Adventures handbook, in case you don't want to leave it up to the random rolls of the dice. This method will average out 13 for three stats and 14 for the other three is split evenly.

Characters are generated via a point-buy attribute system.
During character generation, each attribute starts at 6, and
the player begins with 45 points to spread among his or her
ability scores. No single attribute can begin above 18.
Normally, attribute scores only increase or decrease during
the course of a game as a result of magic, poison,
curses or other extraordinary events. Should an attribute
score change during game play, the modifier changes to
correspond to the new score, if applicable. It is possible
for an attribute score to fall below 3 or exceed 18 during
game play. However, attribute scores for characters that
fall outside of this range are rare, and are usually associated
with monsters, high-level villains, powerful magical
items or other entities controlled by the Game Master.

For those of you who were talking about using just the modifers and not the actually score here is how AA handles it.

Optional: Getting rid of the spread
In practice, the 3-18 spread for attributes only matters insofar
as it generates a bonus or penalty to SIEGE checks. If players
and GMs wish to get rid of the spread, it’s possible to simply
play with bonuses. In this case, all abilities should begin at
-2, and players have 25 points with which to raise them. No
ability can be raised above +3. If a player needs more points,
she can lower one or more attributes to -3, gaining one point
for each attribute lowered from -2 to -3.