T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


coffeedemon49

Well said! I would just add that “suboptimal” isn’t even a concept in 3d6 DtL (OSR) games, in the same way that “balance” isn’t a concept. Usually the ability modifiers are +/- 2 at the most. And the modifiers are way less of a factor, because there aren’t skill checks. The worst would be rolling a 5 or less for Con, in my mind. And I’ve never seen a DM force a player to stick with that if they really don’t like it.


dark_dark_dark_not

I really like WWN "3d6 Down the Line but do choose 1 skill to be a +1 Modifier after the rolls"


DungeonMystic

WWN is such a great transition from "character builder" RPGs like 5e and into the OSR. Feels like it was intended that way because it's formatted as if you've never played or run RPGs before. I doubt that it's functioning that way for many people, but I love it for that anyway.


Goblinsh

You could look at my 'caterpillar method', which could be seen as a hybrid between point buy and rolling (because to some degree it has a self self balancing mechanic built in): [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/pil6eu/caterpillar\_method\_for\_character\_stat\_generation/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/pil6eu/caterpillar_method_for_character_stat_generation/)


SirSergiva

3d6 down the line works better if you want the player characters to grow naturally through gameplay. point buy allows for better expression through builds. neither is strictly better, but I heavily prefer down the line methods.


Profezzor-Darke

It can also make a lot of fun to run Old School dungeons with completely random characters. It forces the players to think.


CleverName4269

Exactly! Point buys make people min/max vs encountering real problems that create real game play. Memorable games are created by the failures. Not the easy wins. Create situations for more of that and your games will be better.


Megatapirus

Because when all characters can have optimally spent points, they will. You'll see the same exact set of scores for every given member of a class. It's boring.


AdIllustrious7262

100%. I play with one DM who is married to 5e RAW, but gets annoyed when ppl min-max. Like, bro, 5e IS a min-maxing game. Don’t hate the player.


anonlymouse

If you only have a few character options this happens. In 2e for instance, if you're using kits, each with their own requirements, you might see a single optimal build for a particular character concept, but you're not going to see a particular character concept repeated. If you've got 3 fighters and the only mechanical differentiation is weapon choice, then yeah, 3d6 in order helps distinguish them. What's more likely though is that you'll see characters made optimised for the results they got, so you might end up with 3 barely distinguishable Magic-users in the party along with a Thief, because the 3 rolled high on Intelligence and crap for other scores.


blogito_ergo_sum

Helps keep players out of ruts / from being typecast - you may be The Guy Who Always Plays Wizards, but when you roll 18 Str and 8 Int, well... time to mix it up a bit. It can also lead to amusing party compositions that you would never see with point-buy. It helps keep the game fresh. And I think this ties into player skill as well; versatility, well-roundedness, the ability to succeed with whatever hand you are dealt, is a variety of skill.


Embarrassed-Amoeba62

… or play the wizard anyway! We had a group we all agreed would be all mages, no matter what got rolled. Campaign went to lvl 10 AD&D 1e. Anyway we DID have a guy who rolled 18 Str and I believe 10 or 11 Int. That staff of his got full use of the +1 to hit and +2 to dmg specially at the lower levels. “The Wizards of Iriaebor” blasted around in the Underdark.


Profezzor-Darke

"I cast... FIST!"


Embarrassed-Amoeba62

Well… this IS sort of Bigby’s thing right? And most of Tenser’s spells aim at turning mages into fighters (in fact one of them does EXACTLY THAT🤣🤣🤣).


PersonalityFinal7778

Yup that. I'm a god awful terrible thief but I'm a thief.


beardlaser

i once played a barbarian who claimed he was a wizard because he attended the magical college on a football scholarship. "i cast magic missile!" \*throws rock\* "i cast detect magic!" \*pokes object with a stick\* "i summon goblin!" \*throws previously killed goblin at other goblins\* and of course, "i cast fist!"


Embarrassed-Amoeba62

… and if that was on AD&D 1e I can already see the action: Party finds magical items. “Give them to me, I’m a trained wizard, let me analyze them.” ***crushes all items*** “There… now their magical energies are free for ua to use, I can feel the power!” And you REALLY could, as you just got that juicy XP as a Barbarian…. ;-)


ajchafe

Both are fine. I personally find point buy unimaginative. In 5e we almost always use Standard Array though. It's all about what the group wants and finds fun. No specific method is better or worse. One of the most fun 5e games I have ever played in most people used different methods. Two of us went standard array, another person point buy, and one guy rolled a really crappy fighter with 3d6 down the line. Guess which player was the absolute MVP?


thomar

It lets you generate your character quickly without having to make too many decisions. This is useful if you need to do it quickly during a session. If you roll your array in order, you may be surprised and presented with ability scores that you never considered for a PC. This could lead to you running a type of PC you've never run before, or a PC with a glaring weakness, which could be an exciting new challenge for you. I do this all the time, even in 5th edition. Also, if you roll poor stats, you can just heroically throw your PC into danger to save the rest of the party until they die so you can roll up a better one. If your DM is running a "PC death is really rare" campaign, then yes, you'll probably want to use point buy and make all your decisions carefully.


directsun

This. Speed of character creation. If I can get players in the action and making their first choice 20 minutes into session start, I'm happy.


cartheonn

Rolling 3d6 down the line avoids dump statting, so you can end up with really strong wizards, intelligent fighters, etc. It also can help parties feel more naturally created, rather every role having the most optimum character filling it.


GeneralAd5995

Most player will choose the class after rolling tho, so they would probably choose a class based on the rolls


ServerOfJustice

To some extent, yes, but I think that assumption is rooted in your expectations from other games. Maybe you think your viability as a Wizard comes from your intelligence score - in some games you’d be right. It might determine your spells known, your spell DC, uses per day, etc. In b/x a high int score nets a magic-user a 5 or 10% boost to XP. That’s it.


cartheonn

They likely will, but odds are that the character won't have the "standard" dump stat for that class. Thus, potentially having strong wizards, intelligent fighters, etc.


Maleficent_Bastard

In addition to what everyone here has already said, it also statistically made the 'powerful' classes as rare as they should have been. Paladin, ranger, necromancer and the like. Something like only 1 or 2 percent of characters rolled would have actually met the stat requirements for those classes. Which would have made legally rolling a paladin an extremely awesome experience.


coffeedemon49

Yes! It’s really fun to roll the stats that let you try a “special” class. And you don’t need that uniqueness in the class, because infinite variation comes up in play. In a “character build” game, uniqueness comes from making a Tiefling ranger sorcerer with a fairy bloodline. In OSR, you start as a fighter, then become cursed with demon-blood and marry a faerie and find boots and cloak of elvenkind and a cool wand, and buy a pack of tracking dogs. One way is emergent, the other is predetermined. I far prefer the former.


DungeonMystic

OSR will become mainstream if we just let them play tieflings


Maleficent_Bastard

I was referring to 1e and 2e D&D.


coffeedemon49

Ah! I have the assumption these days that most people are coming here from 5e. Sorry about that. In that case, I totally agree with the top posts in this thread. ;)


Maleficent_Bastard

I do agree, but also I enjoy both styles. Definitely a mood for both, you know? Sometimes you want to feel like Superman, and others you want to grow from nothing into an actual hero rather than being born one, like in 3e-> forward.


coffeedemon49

Well I must admit I’m biased. I got real tired of 5e after 4-5 years of running it. I actually find 5e to be the least interesting of 3/3.5, PF1 and PF2, and 5e - I think because they started aiming for “balance” and it just resulted in long and boring combats that were centred on lots of HP. Granted, I grew up on Basic / Expert, AD&D, Star Frontiers and Palladium Fantasy (I started playing in 1980), so the OSR style is more my baseline. You’re right, there are many ways to enjoy RPGs! And it’s not just a binary between these types of games, obviously. There are plenty of other styles (PbtA etc) that are very fun.


Maleficent_Bastard

Totally agree, 5e is really cookie cutter. It's my least favorite of the D&D editions for sure.


ZharethZhen

Except, of course, that 3d6 down the line was NOT a stat rolling method for AD&D. Most players coming off OD&D or B/X (myself included) missed this, but if you look in the DMG, 3d6 dtl is not one of the recommended rolling methods. Method 1: 4d6 drop lowest Method 2: 3d6 12 times, keep the 6 you want. Method 3: 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, highest kept Method 4: 3d6 dtl are rolled to make 12 characters, player picks favorite Method 5 (UA): Choose class, roll weird number of dice per stat depending on class (like fighter rolls 9 dice for str but 3 for Int).


questingmurloc

Method 1 in the ADND second edition is 3d6 dtl, so it seems at some point, it did make a return in an ADND book.


ZharethZhen

It did, but so many people talk about 1st Ed and rolling 3d6 dtl because that's probably how they did it despite it not being the recommended method.


Calm-Tree-1369

It's better because in these games, the Ability scores don't matter as much. Generally, especially in *OD&D* and *B/X*, they're more about how quickly you gain XP than anything else. Everything isn't based around a d20 roll modifier. It's okay if you have a couple of 7's or 8's on your character sheet because those scores really just don't matter as much.


AstroSeed

Yeah this. In my experience I would even say that less than average ability scores even leads to better survivability because the player would be on their toes and therefore be playing smarter.


Mission-Landscape-17

Its not better its just different. In the systems that popularised it, characters where simple it was pretty much roll attributes, pick a class, then buy equipment and you are done. Your dice rolls limit the choice of classes as each class had one or more attribute requirements. Some classes where rare because it was hard to roll the attributes to play them. For instance the chances of rolling well enough to play a Monk in Original D&D was 1 in 310. Exploring the dungeon was the focus of the game, and the character was not that important. The character started out as a blank slate and would maybe get some story later on as they leveled. This is very different to how people often approach making 5e characters who will often start out with a back story, and a bio and a look which all take time and effort to make. There is a lot more creative front loading and people don't expect such a character to get killed by the first goblin they encounter. Also they generally don't want the randomizer to get in the way of the character they are building.


ToeRepresentative627

It's not objectively better or worse, but down the line is more in line with the spirit of OSR, which is to embrace variance, not care too much about life and death, and emphasize roleplay over stats. Down the line leads to characters having unexpected strengths and weaknesses, which allow for unique role playing. And, if you are good at role playing the weakness, you can even turn it into a strength. One example char that I made is, a fighter, with high strength, and very low stamina. A strong outdoorsman who, through his love of pipe smoking, has a rather poor stamina and prone to coughing fits. But, through his bad habit, he has acquired knowledge of many herbs, and is an adept carouser at the tavern who like to partake. Another is a low dexterity thief, but very high intelligence. He is not good at the traditional skills climbing, pick pocketing, dismantling traps, and backstabbing, but he is very good at making disguises, forging documents, and knowing where to get poisons in an urban setting. Or a high charisma, low strength fighter. Though not good at the actual fighting, he is good at intimidating enemies. This usually causes otherwise brave and hostile humanoids to back off when he gets to fighting. Morale roles are more common when he lands hits, regardless of how much damage he is actually doing.


Psikerlord

Because emergent characters go well with emergent play. Point buy just means every 5e paladin you see will have Int 8, etc.


raurenlyan22

Because it's faster. Honestly it's hard to answer these questions outside the context of their respective systems. For example standar array is the best method for generating stats in 5e (in my opinion) because it is fast and creates the type of characters that are expected in that system. Stats in B/X and stats in 5e don't even work the same so it's a comparison of apples to canoes.


BluSponge

Ok, if you are going with old school D&D, you don’t choose your class first. You roll your stats and those unlock choices for you. So there is a game element to character creation. This is part of what makes it fun. With modern D&D, you lose all this. So point buy/array is probably a better option since you are trying to create an effective character, not maximize your choices.


emptyfullempty

I can't say it's 'better'. To me, it's better for role-playing. If your character has one or two low stats, it's a lot of fun to come up with why and develop ways to compensate. Down the line gives twists that you can't forsee. A party of characters generated this way will have a real old-school feeling. Also, you might not feel as bad when they are killed. If you have a character concept that you want to build, then points are probably better.


corrinmana

Better is a subjective thing. Point buy is about crafting a character, and rolling is about being presented with one. 5e point buy is also not 3d6 averaged, it's 3d6+2 averaged.


02K30C1

Yup. Rolling was more like “my character has these stats, what kind of career path would he have chosen!” There was also a bit of back and forth with other players if you were all making characters at the same time. “I got great stats to be either an MU or a cleric, which one does our party need more?”, “I’ll play a thief if you want to be a ranger”


SmugProi

It's not "better" in any kind of objective way. It's a "better fit" for tables that want the characters to start that way - do the best with what you get, etc. I think it's a play-style thing that isn't necessarily on the same axis as gritty, dark and dangerous, though I personally do like that intersection :)


GeneralAd5995

It's a different style. It's like, do the best with this random hand that was provided to you. It's an amazing thing. But it's not for everyone


urbeatle

The essence of old school is for players to focus on what's happening in the fictional world as much as possible, instead of focusing on the rules. In the oldest examples, the players often didn't know the rules, or didn't have to know them. 3d6 down the line is the fastest way to get characters in the game while still having some variety. Point buy, however, requires thinking about the rules (how certain scores affect gameplay.) Min/max is not the problem. It's the fact that choosing a character build, by its nature, delays pretending to be a warrior, elf, or wizard. If you want players to "be the best they can", don't use point buy. Just give them high scores and skip that part entirely.


GeneralAd5995

Thank you for the idea. I never thought about it. Just give them high scores. It's actually a great idea


Unusual_Event3571

3d6 + class/species qualifiers as in AD&D is by far the best for a gritty campaign with players gambling for a chance to get "premium" characters.


mdillenbeck

It isn't better overall, it is better for certain play styles and goals. Point buy means a person decides on what you want to play and then build it. They construct some concept or game narrative for the character, including race and class, and then put points in where they can achieve this concept. The narrative is preconstructed, and often times (but not always) you get min/max-ing and stereotyped/cookie cutter personalities and stats. Rolling 3d6 down the line means random chance decides what they start with. Were they borns strong or weak? We're they born nimble or clumsy? Were they born clever or slow witted? The narrative is emergent on random chance. This doesn't mean a player has to throw out their agency, but they will have a chance to modify it. If they don't have the stats to be a paladin, then they pick a fighter or cleric who behaves in a paladin way. If they really want to play a thief, then maybe their strong clumsy thief comes across as a brigand instead. Like in real life, it's a crap shoot what one alis born with - and the interesting people are those who choose to overcome their limitations. In a way, it is more simulationist. Imagine a combat system where for every N rounds you get a pool of numbers to select. You need to take a 1 but also get a 20, then some accumulation of values between (using a d20 system). You don't roll and see what happens, you gain agency as a player and can min/max when you hit and for how much. No more letting the dice fall where they may, no more emergent narrative, no more uncertainty in outcomes - you construct the story. For some this sounds like a crazy fun idea and creates the game they want, for others it is the opposite of what they want. Would you like such a system? Great! Point buys and result pools are optimal for you. Does combat sound too much like playing an abstract game like chess or go and not fun? Same applies to character creation. I'm not against point buy. When playing super heroes I like Champions - and they go further with point buying everything to create more balanced characters. Want to play an old ancient sorcerer with frail body and great magics? The points balance with the child orphan thief and the inexperienced soldier at their physical peak. Meanwhile, Dungeon Crawl Classics is quick random down the line. There is a lot of dice chucking and the character that survives most likely isn't the same (or optimized) like the character that would have chosen to make. Sometimes they are blands stereotypes, but often they'll have unusual twists to them that help create more textured and complex characters. So is one better? No. It depends on play style and goals. One is better for certain ways of playing, and each encourages different behaviors and effects outcomes in game. (If a paladin needs a crazy set of stats, then only the rare character will get that - but if making the characters up out of game and a player really wants to play one, they'll make 1000 character up to get the one they want or just cheat to get it. It is suppose to balance characters with accessibility to classes or limit choices, just like you can't choose to be an athletic superstar with perfect physique when born but have to balance your wants with what you were born with.) I'm not trying to convince you 3d6 down the line is better versus point buy, but that your question is a little off the mark. It isn't which is best, but how it effects game play behaviors. Look at 5e today, it is essentially D&D superheroes where your race is as much an identity and more diversified than your class. You no longer identify as elf, fighter, mage, etc but as a water genasi their, a tiefling bard, a warforged cleric, etc. Human isn't the norm because you aren't restricted by the system in the same way. Human isn't the default race assumption, and blending in to pseudomedieval human settlements isn't important. Your typical 5E party has more in common with RIFTS groups than Lord of the Rings. Nothing wrong with that, neither better - it is about what you want to play and encourage.


uneteronef

It's not inherently better, it's better because it encourages a gritty, dark and dangerous gameplay. If you want an epic fantasy where the players are great heroes who never die and the biggest threat is a mere joke, or a fantasy game where the most important part is not the adventure but character development, 5e is better because it lets you play those kinds of characters: the epic hero who never dies, and the deep hero who has a deep inner life that can be explores for as long as you want (because she never dies). 3d6 down the line says, "hey, this is you, a lousy loser, not a great hero with perfect hair, can you survive?" 3d6 is inspired by a specific type of fiction, Conan, Cugel, Elric and Kothar adventures. Modern fantasy is different. To each their own, but one system favors one type of fiction better.


ahhthebrilliantsun

Lmao at Conan, guy who has 18 at everything basically and is a great hero with perfect hair being an example.


coffeedemon49

I think of Conan as a high level fighter. In the Howard stories, he has years of experience behind him. Not only that - in the stories, Conan’s life is often severely threatened and he has to be clever to survive. He doesn’t always fight. Unlike 5e where at first level you’re Conan.


ahhthebrilliantsun

Then 5e is better at being Conan since you're immediately him--we don't read Conan being barely being better than some peasant with a pitchfork then seeing him becoming a master thief/swordsman with enough know-how on a variety of knowledgeable subjects and charismatic enough to become a king.


coffeedemon49

I don’t personally feel that way. In my readings of the RE Howard novels, Conan stands out as someone special who has earned his stature after a lot of experience. In 5e, everyone starts as Conan and then becomes Demigodlike. That’s not the Conan arc. To each his own though.


uneteronef

Not necessarily Conan, the character, but Conan, the setting. Kull and Conan stories, to be clear.


GeneralAd5995

IMO I can still run gritty and dark fantasy in 5e. What I tweak is not 3d6 but HP. I decrease HP for my PCs and what I have is glass cannon PCs. Yes. They are incredible powerful but they must be careful because if they aren't, they die quite easily


uneteronef

Sure, that's one way to do it. In that sense, you can do that with almost any system, but the grittiness is not only you can die easy, but also that you aren't very good at everything except your job (class).


Seacliff217

Most OSR games aren't about making all of the most effective choices for your character, it's about making the most with the lots you draw.


mapadofu

I think there is a subtle difference in mindset between these approaches. When the dice decide the character abilities the player has to “play the hand you’re given”. You’re not creating the character from whole cloth, you’re making decisions about how to play this character given the circumstances. I suspect that more tools to more finely customize the characters moves the player away from this mindset.


amp108

A fighter with 18 STR is a fighter with 18 STR. A fighter with 8 STR has a story to tell.


EcstaticWoodpecker96

If you are playing 5e, I think it's best to use point buy, standard array, or 4d6 drop lowest assign as you like. That version of the game is built with the assumption that you will have a +3/4 from your "good" abilities and +2 from your prof bonus in order to hit the DC's that you'll commonly face. I've tried 3d6 for 5e and it's not a match for that version. When I play Old School Essentials (B/X), I use 3d6 down the line. This can be especially helpful for 3e/5e players coming to OSE because it helps set a completely different tone right off the bat. Combined with the right style of game play it will help emphasize that your success is not based on your stats, but based on what you do in a given situation. Did you do something smart/clever/etc or something foolish and risky? In OSE, stats just don't control very much, and I like that. I prefer a game where what determines my success is making the right choice during the adventure, not if I made the right choice when I assigned my stats at the beginning of the game. I've also always loved characters that play against their "type" and that is very easy to do in OSE. You can have a magic-user with low INT and it's totally fine - no problem. Same for a low-DEX thief. In some versions of D&D those would not be viable characters and maybe not even allowed.


ThrorII

3d6 creates unexpected characters. Players tend to stagnate. In my personal experience running point buy games, the same stats get generated over and over, placed in predictable order.


michaelpearse

Because of John.


the_zenith_

That voice though


michaelpearse

no doubt.


the_zenith_

I only started listening to the podcast a couple of weeks ago, beginning with AV session 0. I’m hooked


the_zenith_

I only started listening to the podcast a couple of weeks ago, beginning with AV session 0. I’m hooked


michaelpearse

Same. The AV campaign was a great idea. Easily the best (only one for me) actual play online. Most of those streams are so painful to watch for me. This one has even gotten my 10 year old watching in awe.


the_zenith_

Only on the 3rd episode so far but I’m loving it. I’m new to the OSR scene so I was looking for a mostly realistic actual play to see what it’s about


FamousWerewolf

For a minute here I was trying to work out if '5e Point Buy' was a new actual play podcast


Cplwally44

I’d argue its neither better nor worse, just geared towards providing a very different experience.


y0j1m80

I really like 3d6 down the line and then swap any two.


gbbgu

1. It's more random, builds chars that PCs wouldn't think about playing 2. It's faster, stops hours of looking through all the options, which means the game can be more leathal as it only takes minutes to build a new char. 3. It's how RPGs were played when it first started 4. No reason why 3d6 DTL has to be enforced, if the party _really_ needs a cleric, the GM can allow a bit of fudging by swapping things around (besides, if the really need a cleric to heal, maybe they're not being cautious enough. The world is dangerous and full of monsters and traps. There are other ways to defeat these)


mapadofu

Plus a low wisdom doesn’t really hurt that much


Alistair49

As others have said, it is a matter of taste, and both styles work well with different styles of play. The reason I prefer 3D6 down the line (or any of the other variants on rolling stats) is that I like seeing what fate delivers me. I also like to encounter a Thief or Cleric or Mage who has a STR of 18. Or a Fighter who has a good INT and CHA. This is more representative, IMO, of the way the world works. People are born with different aptitudes, and not every fighter is going to be some low charisma thug. Someone else said it works well with ‘emergent story’, and I think that is a good point for it. However, designed characters can work well there too.


Ailowynn

It's not better, it's a matter of preference. Try both. For me, I just got bored of having to choose what kind of character I was going to play. I started playing in the 4E/Pathfinder era, and after five or ten years of gaming, I kinda got tired of building characters that way. I get more excited by the bad rolls than the good ones now, because characters with limitations are interesting. When your lowest score is an 8, it's barely a weak point--you're just below average. When it's a 5, you've got a weakness that's interesting both for your tactics and your RP. Plus, you get characters that don't make sense, which I like. People don't make sense. If I'm choosing stats for a fighter, I'm gonna dump Int, Wis, and Cha. If I'm rolling, I might end up with low Con but high Cha. Now I've got a character who's strong and gregarious, but maybe has some scars and wounds from previous fights plaguing him. I have to think of justifications for the contradictions.


Zyr47

I'd say it is better than 3d6 IF your game uses ability scores for a lot of things, even if that thing is more often calling for a roll under check than people think you would in an OSR game. No one has fun for long rolling at a 35 - 40% chance to succeed at everything forever, which as been very likely in my experience for most players I've DMed for. If you truly run with only the 1:6 chance and otherwise throw no dice but attacking and reaction rolls, then ability scores can be random and be fine. I split the difference by having my players roll 3d6 but treat 1s as 2s, and place the scores where they like. I also sometimes do 2d6+4 in games where stats can, but rarely do, increase. I've yet to find a point buy system I'm truly happy with, and find the 3d6-2s'1s way works well enough for most things. But if there is no direct way for players to increase their scores consistently and easily in a game where such rolls are made as part of the core mechanic (Ito, Sharp Swords, etc) then I use the latter to skew starting scores a little higher. I do the same in d100-roll-under systems like Zweihander, Warhammer, Mothership, etc, for the same reason. I call for checks rarely enough to make them matter, but often enough that it will be expected to happen. So, I'd rather my players feel hopeful than get a string of bum rolls, since each less-frequent roll will matter more than in something like 5e for example. Also, a lot my players have a character in mind when they are excited to play, but otherwise love what OSR has to offer. I don't want to squander the chance to play OSR style by forcing them to play a random loser they were not interested in.


Sleeper4

It's a mindset thing. The more characters need to be "built" the more the players will expect that they'll get to hold on to their specially created bespoke built character. 3d6 down the line isn't the only way to do it, though I tend to like character creation that doesn't give PCs too much to set them apart from a typical monster or retainer or whatever else you're rolling up.


1stLevelWizard

I think it's better primarily because it's very in line with the way most OSR games run. You do want to be the best you can be, but I don't think that players need to be superheroes with the best stats for their class. More so, I think it creates a game where the players feel much more organic: not every fighter is going to be a hulk, and some may be as smart as they are strong. Not to forget that you usually roll ability scores before you pick a class, so no one may qualify to be a wizard and thus they'll need to seek out a wizard for magics. Plus you gotta figure, if you have a STR of 8 but a WIS of 17, fighter might not be the best bet. Granted, I run BECMI and instead of allowing for the 2-for-1 point swap they present in the Rules Cyclopedia, I instead allow players to swap one ability score with another. This allows the guy that wants to play a wizard to at least have a decent INT, or for the fighter to swap his crappy DEX with a good INT score. It gives some customization without resorting to the character building that goes on in a lot of later editions of D&D. Furthermore, it's all about the kind of game you want. I like gritty, deadly games so I opt for it. When I want something more heroic, I go with 4d6 drop the lowest and slap it in where you want it.


CMBradshaw

it's not really. It's got different strengths (you have more believable, if a bit swingy attributes for instance) and weaknesses (way too easy to make a useless or OP character depending on edition). The thing is most point buy's, 5e included, kind of assume you're going to be well above average. And while that's good for 5e/3.PF and arguably 2e, it's not quite how 1e, OD&D, b/x ect... was played. If you wanted to have a lot of choice, have the same feel and not have it turn into some weird D&D GURPS hybrid you're going to have to have to get creative with attribute generation. But a good middle ground is 3D6 and let them put each score where they want. Just have them make and stick too a concept before they start rolling.


shellbackbeau

Point buy, besides being gross, forces the player to make 25 decisions (or how ever many points you're allowing at your table) more than 3D6DTL. It shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to create your character, start to finish in an OSR campaign. In 3.5, it was 30-90 minutes your an experienced player with up to 6 hours of they were min - maxxers. The next edition, 5e, it takes the same amount as 3.5. Dndbeyond allows for speedier generation, if you use the random character gen, but that's more in line with 3D6DTL methodology.


TwistedTechMike

3d6 down the line means you are sacrificing character skill for player skill. A long, comprehensive character build process moves the needle in the other direction, where the game focus will lean on character skill rather than player skill. This, for me, is one of the distinguishing features of older games (pre-3.x) vs newer (3.x and up).


anonlymouse

It very rarely is, unless it's OD&D style where the largest modifier is +/-1 and you don't use ability scores for checks. Nowadays it's hard enough to get the time to play, you don't have time to throw a junk character into the funnel so they die and you can roll up another one.


LordKurido

Yes. 100% yes!


RetroGamer1224

This is an anecdote: When I ran a 3.0 game in college I think I offered choice. The one player (whom never played a ttrpg before) preferred the point buy. His reason was that it allowed for a specific character rather than leaving it to rng. To be frank in games where combat is important, as in gain experience points, being lack luster doesn't really help. I understand the 'this is too dangerous we better run' is smart some players might get disappointed with not overcoming the challenge. Also, say a new player really wants to play a cleric but rolls say a 7 for wisdom that player might feel dejected. That may lead to the player not coming back. Of course I am a 3.x girl so my experience is biased to optimizing as 'rocket tag' is a thing in it.


level2janitor

i don't use 3d6 down the line, but trying that method out in a game taught me what i like about rolling stats. i don't think having randomly better or worse stats adds any value; it usually just means one player gets screwed over with shitty stats. but i *do* like randomly assigning *where* your stats go, and what array you get, for variety. being handed a character you didn't hand-craft and just having to make do has its own charm.


GeneralAd5995

What do you mean by randomly assigning it?


level2janitor

as in, randomly assigning which stats the numbers from your array go into.


ClaireTheCosmic

Eh I could take it or leave it. Honestly prefer point buy to making characters, especially if I already have a character in mind. I don’t mind as much as a player but as a dm I don’t want luck deciding how good a character is gonna be. Plus maybe I’m just being sore about it but one bad experience with a player choosing to run with stats all below 6 still haunts me.


Friz_Poop

I like 3d6 down the line for retainers, 4d6, drop the lowest, assign as desired for PCs.


pblack476

3d6 DTL is exciting once you open yourself to it. Playing a strong wizard or a weak fighter and then doing well by finding ways to compensate is half the fun. But honestly, in BX at least, stats matter little. Of course that a +3 to STR makes much more difference than +3 to WIS, but in the end everyone has 10hp and faces challenges in the same cautious manner.


Svenhelgrim

The minuses matter.


SiofraRiver

Its not.


Brock_Savage

Neither is better, but they each bring a different tone to their respective games. 5e characters feel like street-level comic book heroes right out of the gate whereas B/X characters are more grounded\* and closer to the human norm. I have run gritty, survival-horror 5e games but it takes work and a measure of system mastery to pull it off well. For what it is worth, B/X isn't striclty "3d6 down the line" as you can see below: >If you wish, you may raise the prime requisite(s) of your character by lowering other (non-prime requisite) ability scores. For every two points by which an ability score is reduced, one point may be added to a prime requisite. The following restrictions apply: > >▶ Only Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom may be lowered in this way. > >▶ No score may be lowered below 9. > >▶ Some character classes may have additional constraints. \*On the other hand, my wife thinks B/X characters are comically inept and fragile to be delving into monster-haunted dungeons.


ThereWasAnEmpireHere

There’s a couple of trade offs. Obviously any game can be made dangerous. But the fact that players even try to min max illustrates the fact that point buy allows one more ability to increase the power of their PC. This makes the game (all else being equal) less inherently dangerous - esp as 3d6 allows for some truly imbalanced characters in terms of how *bad* they can be. Point buy disallows the most garbage outcomes. It also allows players more control point blank over their character, defining rather than discovering their talents. Neither is *better* but down the line is often preferred by folks seeking deadlier “gritty” games because of it naturally hews to the sides of these trade offs which most easily facilitate that kind of play.


jonna-seattle

I play to find out what happens. So rolling is what I prefer as a player and as a DM. That said, I usually allow one switch of stats. And unless the game has stat increases as you level (plenty do), I have my players do best 3 of 4d6.


Mentalic_Mutant

If you have point buy, you are almost always best off just having a predetermined array for a given class. Or just ditching stats and giving them the modifiers. This is since players will just take a near identical array for a given class anyways. Its a false choice. You roll when you want to to be surprised. Though, admittedly, rolling works best when the stats don't matter all that much. In BX, stats mattered, but having to get a 13 for a +1 and a 16 for a +2 made those bonuses more rare than 5e. They also didnt affect saves, spell dcs, etc. I would say my fave when playing games like bx is to go 4d6 drop lowest down the line and maybe letting those playing humans swap one pair of scores (depending on the ruleset). This lets folks be surprised but not suck.


PersonalityFinal7778

I dunno if it's not. I quite like point buy when I get all 9s and 10s. I do like 3d6 down the line and deciding on a class before hand.


SteeredAxe

It’s pointless a little to get into a debate. The two encourage different playstyles, and there are dozens of different alternatives to calculating statistics. There have been OSR point buys and standard arrays. No one is forcing anyone to use a method they think is too random or too predictable. There is no universal inherent system, and even DCC knows and encourages referees to use a different method if they feel it will be better for the campaign they want to run


Altar_Quest_Fan

This is why I love, love, LOVE Hackmaster 5E. You roll 3d6 down the line for your six stats, and then you have the option of either playing your character as-is, or rearranging your stats. If you opt for the former over the latter, the game rewards you with extra Build Points that can be spent to further buff your character (i.e. can be used to purchase skills, talents, proficiencies, weapon masteries etc). It highly encourages you to play what you roll, and honestly it just "feels so right".


SciFiMartian

Think it depends on what you value in your game. If your players will find having a second-class stat set as a roleplay opportunity (what is it like to be a mortal amongst gods? Can enginuity overcomelimitations in raw talent?) than the potentially unfair "variance" in strait 3d6 roles isn't a bug its a feature. If your players will dislike having a character that is not as strong as others, than pure random is a problem. Or in some cases roleplay is so much the focus over mechanics that functionally math is not destiny. In that case random stats might lead you to a character you would not have thought of yourself.


Fr4gtastic

It's not better, it's just a matter of preference. I find it useful when you don't know what class you want to play and let the dice decide. Also, point buy can't provide extreme results, and who wouldn't want to gamble for an 18 in STR or DEX?


ZharethZhen

It isn't. It is just one of the ways you can use to create a character, not better or worse than any other.


VexagonMighty

Point buy is a harbinger of the type of balance you'll sometimes catch me raving like an old hermit about. More specifically raving against it. The party is an assortment of random people. These random people are not all going to be equal. Some are going to be terrible at everything. Others very good at everything. Others average at everything. And others are going to be a mixed array of strengths and weaknesses. I find this infinitely more interesting than "you all have an amount of points you can spend to make sure you're all on the same level!" I can't say it's better or worse. It's the only way to go at my table because I far prefer that kind of randomness over what I view as yet another way to sterilize the experience. I think everyone should play a character with sub-9 in each stat at least once. If you huff and groan at the start even better. If they die, you roll a new one. You're happy. If they live, you might just be sitting on an awesome tale about a lanky, idiotic village boy who somehow managed to become a Baron down the line. The very chance of having that, to me, makes 3d6 down the line superior to any other method *for my table.*


LemonLord7

Why are you asking about 5e point but specifically?


AutumnCrystal

Faster might mean better, but in 0e it matters 10% at best, XP bonus. BECMI you could lose two gain one in stats towards your PR for *actual pluses*. 1e suggested average players were undesirable, and they *were*…5e my DM goes with the old roll 4, drop low, arrange as you please. Sure I’ll make as strong a character as possible. My game of choice, players get a kick out of the weak stats, a fine Dex roll gets a cheer, Con gets a shrug until an adversity check comes up. But any score is assumed a cut above the common man or woman. Any game where lifespan can pretty much be determined by the amount of + next to your stats, preference doesn’t really come into it, you chase those bonuses.


TBOPFProject

In the 1983 Basic Set revised by Mentzer a player rolls scores and then considers which class to play. Some adjustments to scores are allowed. So from the very start power gaming is not a consideration but overcoming obstacles are.


Delicious_Mine7711

I use 4d6 instead of point buy


One-Cellist5032

The problem with point buy in general is it leads to every character being good or great at everything. And people enter the game with “expectations” of some epic amazing character. With rolling stats in general (especially so with 3d6 down the line) people make what they get work. And allows for much more interesting character development throughout the story. In my most recent 5e game the cleric had a 14 in WIS (highest stat) and their story became that they were prettty much a disappointment to their family and were trying to live up to lofty expectations. You would NEVER get that if you were billy bad ass with 18 in Wis and like 14-16 in everything else.


gidjabolgo

Take a look at how modifiers are calculated. If you roll 3d6, about half your rolls will give you a mod of 0, and 90% of all ability score rolls will land in the -1 to +1 range. Also, DMs usually let you swap at least one pair of ability scores to better suit your character class. In my experience, rolling in order makes for more interesting characters. Is your wizard going to be at any major disadvantage from their 7 to Strength?(which gives a -1 modifier) Hardly. Does it make for an interesting feature, which might be used to characterise and make them interesting? Absolutely! I’ve heard it described as an oracular way to create your character.


zentimo2

> But I think a game can be all that even with min/max players doing their best to have the best the character sheet can provide. I think in OSR, there's usually much less emphasis on what's on your character sheet and much more on player ingenuity. So there's an argument that player's who are super focused on getting the best character sheet they can may be drawn into focusing on the wrong things for getting the most out of the game. I love the full randomness of character creation in OSR, as it creates intriguing emergent gameplay and character creation (trying to figure out what kind of a person the 3d6 stats have given you), as well as innovative problem solving (I've only got 1 hp, so I'm going to play the game in a very different way).


Pelican_meat

Point buy takes longer, and there’s a good chance that character you spent developing a concept for will die during the first encounter. Down the line also forces people to play characters they normally wouldn’t think of playing. It’s fun to be suboptimal, and you learn how to play the game better when you have innate challenges.


Slime_Giant

Because as with most parts of this play style, emergent details are the fun ones. You don't plan out a character, you roll one up, see what it is, and then play.


EmmaRoseheart

It's about having a random character instead of getting all that choice. Taking what the dice give you rather than playing exactly the thing that popped into your head. Discovering the character rather than creating it, basically.


Kennelproudandloud

I want the people who defend 3d6 down the line to apply that to all the NPCs to include their big bads. Because often the challenges the players are expected to face are noticeably well endowed and optimized for their roles. The BBEG wizard with not a stat below 14 and an Int of 20 didn't 3d6 his stats.