Ability Score Generation Methods for Characters
There’s lots of ways to roll up your characters - including not rolling at all. Rolling up characters has changed over the years as the game itself has changed and the values being generated changed in their significance.
With the advent of 3E the focus has definitely shifted away from actual ability scores. It’s not the score that matters so much as the adjustment derived from it. The next full revision of D&D may even drop ability scores as unnecessary. In any case, there is less difference now between a score of 16 and 17 than there used to be since they both give a bonus of +3. Previous versions were suffering from stat inflation. That is, in order to get bonuses out of stats at ALL your scores had to be quite high - generally 15 or better. In those earlier versions it became the be-all/end-all to come up with a method of character generation that gave more high scores so that you wouldn’t wind up with lots of characters with scores between 8 and 14 who would be functionally identical. In 3E any score above 11 will get you a bonus instead of needing scores of at least 15, and of course the lower end of the scale has been brought upward so that less than 10 is a penalty.
These changes can’t be emphasized enough. Using 3d6 the chances of a bonus in 2E was only about 10% - you would be lucky to get a score at ALL that got you a bonus, much less a truly high score and truly good bonus. Using best 3 out of 4d6 was better. You could be reasonably confident of at least one score with a bonus - but still not a really GOOD score or bonus barring somewhat unusual dice rolls.
The problem for DM’s is that there is no middle ground. Some methods tend to create super-characters, not characters with a reasonable spread between low and high scores. And the more that players are allowed to get those really high scores they come to EXPECT the high scores. Now that’s less of a problem in 3E where almost any score will get you a bonus, but still a problem. It takes time for the long-term impacts of character creation methods to become evident in casual play. In-depth analysis has yet to be seen (at least by me), and anecdotal evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt. What’s most preferrable to you is unlikely to be preferrable by everyone because we have varied tastes and priorities. Some value absolutely equal playing fields among generated characters; some prefer highly random results; some want to accomodate the players whim in character design; some want to challenge the player with making do; some DM’s like high scores in their game; some despise and fear them as unbalancing; and some actually need to deal with cheaters.
Now, I’m of the opinion that it’s not a crime for PC’s to be good at something. I don’t have a problem with high score characters. I have enough time in as a player to know how fun and satisfying it is to have such a character. If a player rolls a few 13’s and then 16, 17, 18, I’m not worried or annoyed - I’m happy for the player and looking forward to seeing the character do great things. I also like randomness. As a player I like dice rolling for generating characters. It’s FUN. That’s probably because it is gambling in a sense. When you “win” with several high rolls it’s enjoyable. But often times to get to those rolls you have to stomach a seemingly endless series of really average and unexciting results. There just aren’t any die-rolling methods that can give both the consistency of results and the spread of results that is ultimately desired (at least by me).
More and more the attempted solution has been to remove the random element entirely. Point buy systems and default arrays may eliminate the possibility of super-characters, but in the case of the standard (25 points) point buy a character with a truly high score such as an 18 is so gimped in all his other scores it’s insane, and in the case of arrays it makes stat assignment a very sterile process that lacks excitement and interest. Both also lend themselves to truly formulaic assignment of stats by players who naturally and understandably feel compelled to place their stats ONLY as optimally as possible. And of course there are those DM’s whose players consider any OTHER character with stats better than their own to be inherently unfair. Of course that’s a load of crap, but it’s not surprising that DM’s would seek absolute equity and avoid argument altogether rather than more properly convincing such players of the childishness of their attitude.
I’ll now go through the official character creation methods (and maybe a few unofficial ones) given throughout the history of the game. I won’t give any hard statistical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each but I might make a comment or two anyway. When looking at various methods it should first be taken in the context of the rules system in which they were first proposed. That is, the impact of various methods in 1E have VERY different implications in 3E because the same ability scores have differing values in the different rulesets.
Original D&D:
The only method mentioned is 3d6 for each ability score - in order. You take what you get as you get it. However, some adjustment was allowed after those basic scores were recorded but only by an imbalanced sacrifice of one specified category for another, and it depended on your chosen class. For example, Magic-users could sacrifice several points of strength for points of intelligence at a rate of 3:1, fighters could sacrifice 2 points of wisdom for each point of strength, or 2 points of intelligence for a point of strength, and so forth. Now this looks really hardcore and really it is. It completely overlooks the idea that a player that wants to play a fighter should be ALLOWED to play a fighter and so be able to arrange ability scores that support a decent fighter in the first place, rather than have to sacrifice after the fact to salvage a decent fighter character out of the forced arrangement of stats have dictated otherwise. It’s an attitude that will persist until Third Edition where the idea of qualifying for a class or race before you are allowed to play it is finally dropped.
Further notes that must not be overlooked are that the system of original D&D that these characters would operate in is shockingly simplified in that there are only three types of actual bonuses for ability scores. First, a high prime requisite score grants an xp bonus (and low prime requisite an xp penalty!), second Constitution higher than 14 granted bonus hit points up to +3/die at 18 (lower than 7 is a 1 hp penalty), and a Dexterity of 13 or better grants a +1 to missile fire and 8 or less a -1. That is the sum total of stat bonuses to be gained. A high strength gained you no bonuses to hit in melee. A high wisdom gained you no bonus clerical spells. So while the ability generation method was objectively quite draconian, in the context of the rules it mattered VERY little what your scores were because there were so few bonuses to even be gained. A very low strength fighter routinely was little different from a high strength fighter.
AD&D (1st Edition)
Method I:
Best 3 of 4d6, arrange as desired. This has been the default method that has been used in most games I’ve played in or run for many years. It’s probably the one that produces the best results overall across multiple versions of the game. While you still get plenty of very blase’ characters with this method, a little patience from the player and willingness on the part of the DM to allow players to simply try again for a more palatable character and things generally work out.
However, AD&D introduced the idea of needing to have qualifying ability scores for a given class. Even though some of the new character generation methods were allowing complete freedom to arrange the scores, the scores needed to qualify were sometimes ludicrously high and not even in the area where the class really needed a high score given their role. Failure to have high scores in key areas resulted in characters that could be HIGHLY ineffective compared to other characters of the same class. If you were lucky and got those high scores you’d absolutely blow out other characters in comparison to your own. For example a paladin required a 17 in charisma to qualify, but if that’s your only high score you’re left with a paladin with severely “handicapped” fighting ability compared to a fighter who would have been free to place a 17 in strength where it belonged for a character whose forte is still combat. By associating all the bonuses with very high stats, having those high stats became more valuable than one or more levels of a class!
This was doubly true for fiighters because AD&D introduced the concept of super-strength. If a fighter character rolled an 18 for strength he would automatically roll for super-strength (a.k.a. percentile strength for those unfamiliar with 1E) It was an expansion to the “normal” chart of strength bonuses and ranged from 01-00 (1-100). The bonuses to hit and damage with super strength were just WILDLY out of scale with other ability scores and it really did become unfair to see one fighter with percentile strength and another without it in the same party. The lower strength fighter was so hopelessly outclassed it was painful to see and easily created an understandable degreee of jealousy.
As if that weren’t bad enough, AD&D also introduced racial minimum and maximum ability scores theoretically obstructing a player from playing not only the class but the race he wanted as well. Needless to say this restrictive combination of circumstances inspired a great many tweaks and experiments with character generation methods trying to eliminate or at least get around the obstacles. And finally, AD&D introduced level maximums for characters of a given race/class combination. You COULD be a dwarven thief but you weren’t allowed to be any higher than a certain level (though NPC’s were given higher limits in many cases).
Now my own personal experience was that these AD&D restrictions were just ignored by large portions of players or at least they shamelessly sought ways to circumvent or overrule them. But my evaluation here is written from the perspective that they ARE adhered to. It was the perspective of the Core Rules (a perspective supported strongly, but stupidly over the years by official proclamations) that this maintained some kind of fair and level playing field. They claimed that the hard-to-qualify-for characters were more powerful, and thus SHOULD be more rare. It supposedly maintained balance to keep them out of the players hands and to force players to play the characters they COULD qualify for rather than the ones they might actually want to play. Yet it is with 1E AD&D that generation methods begin to proliferate because of all the above limitations and obstacles. They wanted to find a middle ground between not violating “rules” and actually being able to play the game the way they wanted to play it. But there was absolutely no bending of the official rules, no suggestion that they even MIGHT be overly restrictive, if not downright assinine. It would persist until 2000 and the release of 3E.
Method II:
Roll 3d6 twelve times, take the best six results, arrange as desired. A 3d6 roll in and of itself has a poor percentage chance of rolling scores high enough to actually qualify for bonuses in AD&D (about 10% chance of 15 or better) but an even better chance of a penalty (about 17% chance of 7 or lower).
Method III:
Scores are rolled and recorded in order. 3d6 rolled six times for each ability and the highest score for each ability is kept. Produces generally better results for high scores but still quite likely that the character will be less than well-suited, if not simply unqualified for the class that the player desires to play. A characters lowest score could still be Dexterity, and if the player had wanted to play a thief the ability score generation method is getting in the way . This is a general problem with “record in order” methods - you end up rolling lots of sets of ability scores until you finally get a set that will make for a reasonably appropriate character of the class you want.
Method IV:
Scores are rolled and recorded in order using 3d6. Twelve such ability score sets are generated and the player chooses the one he likes best. In choosing from 12 different sets the player is almost certain to find a set of good scores - the problem is that they are still UNlikely to be positioned in a way to make a good candidate for the class he wants.
Method V (from Unearthed Arcana):
Used only for human characters, the player chooses his class and then consults a chart telling how many d6 to roll for any given ability score. The most was 9d6 (out of which you’d take the best 3), and ranged down one die at a time (8d6, 7d6) to a low of 3d6. If you’re paying attention that’s 7 ability scores not 6. This is because UA also introduced the Comeliness score that isolated sheer physical appearance from Charisma. Furthermore, if the character did not then qualify for the class he desired his scores would be raised to the minimum needed to qualify.
This method seemed to be a response to the clear understanding that a great many players saw qualifying scores for what they really were - an unwelcome annoyance, not a true balancing factor. It guaranteed that one way or another a character could be the class that the player wanted (though of course you had to be Human, meaning you still couldn’t pick both class and race in all cases and be guaranteed your combination would work). Its primary drawback IMO is that it creates clone characters - every human thief looks much like every other human thief because the chart is so hopelessly weighted toward not just high scores, but maximum scores in certain areas. It really does create super-characters, although I have to relate an anecdote on that score:
When we first used this system there was one player who misunderstood how it was supposed to be used. He didn’t take the best 3 dice of his rolls - he added them all together. Yet his character was STILL a hopeless loser with most of his scores in single digits and his only good scores, while barely above average, were in useless categories for the class he’d chosen. It only goes to show that if you’re not using one of the guaranteed equity systems you have to have acceptible thresholds AND still be willing to allow character rerolls in those circumstances when one character, though meeting minumums, is highly outclassed by other PC’s because of lower stats.
AD&D (2nd Edition)
Method I:
Roll 3d6 in order once for each ability score - no adjustment (except for race), no rearrangement. This is the most insane and hardcore method ever devised. It virtually assures little or no bonuses and statistically will actually create characters with more penalties than bonuses. Given the requirement in AD&D of actually qualifying for a class by needing high stats over and above what might otherwise be useful for a character it is an excessively restrictive method. It’s simple and it’s fast, but it’s also draconian as there is no explanation for why high character stats - stats that get you bonuses - should need to be so rare. Only exceptional luck allows you to get the character you may want. Most of the time you have few choices about the class the character becomes or else you do a LOT of rerolling.
It should be pointed out that even in the 2nd Edition DM’s Guide they were noting the severe drawbacks to various generation methods. Scores which were high enough to get bonuses (15+) were still considered to be “exceptional”. That is, from an official position, most characters WEREN’T supposed to be allowed to get them. The DMG text seemed to suggest that even seeking the best arrangement of scores possible and the highest bonuses possible was to be DISCOURAGED. The notion (again, at least the official notion) was that players were supposed to be happy with bad scores and undesired characters, or that imagination should entirely supplant logical and natural desires for always seeking to make the most out of everything you got, or that it was still unfair for players to always be allowed to play the characters they wanted to. They needed to accept what they got in order to keep things fair.
In practice this just never happened. It was a load of crap and EVERYONE knew it. Yet it was still the official perspective of the rules. But by the latter days of 2E it was no longer being stressed as it once had been. It was understood and accepted officially that the stat generation limitations were being wildly circumvented but if push came to shove they were still presented as holy writ up until the 3E rules.
Method II:
Roll 3d6 twice for each ability in order, keeping the better of the two rolls without further rearrangement. Like most 2E methods it fails to address the probable lack of elegibility for a desired class.
Method III:
Six rolls of 3d6 each arranged as desired. This method would seem to at least tacitly acknowledge that players should be allowed to try to play the character class that they want, not just be satisfied with what they can get. But it’s still just 3d6 and thus still keeps high scores very infrequent making them abnormally powerful when they occur. Very flawed characters are frequent results, truly good characters infrequent, but most are just tediously average.
Method IV:
Roll 3d6 twelve times, take the best 6 and arrange as desired. Identical to Method II from 1st Edition - almost no really low scores, and most are slightly above the average, but not really any better chance of seeing truly high scores where the actual bonuses are because that 3d6 bell curve just doesn’t cooperate well with the position of the bonuses.
Method V:
Identical to Method I from 1st Edition - best 3 of 4d6 rolled six times and arranged as desired. Suffers from all the same drawbacks but still a good overall method. Surprisingly the 2E DMG described this method as being prone to creating “super” characters. Well, perhaps not so surprising when they consider a mere 15 to be “exceptional”. If you roll a few sets rather than playing “Iron Man” you stand a decent chance at a decent character with at least a few bonuses.
Method VI:
Each ability starts at a minimum of 8. Roll 7 dice and add to stats as desired. No score can be higher than 18 and the full amount of any die must be able to be added. I.e., if you have two 6’s you can’t add both to the base of 8 and disregard the remainder in order to get an 18. An 18 is only possible by some combination of dice adding up to 10. This is actually a rather decent method. It gives the player a great deal of control over the final character, perhaps more than Method V (or I from 1st Edition) and might even make it probable that a character qualify for classes like Paladin. It eliminates all chance of really low rolls by having a minimum. In fact the only way you can manage a penalty is by applying a negative adjustement for race to a minimum score. There is seldom going to be a combination that won’t allow a 17 or 18 on at least one score. HOWEVER, having more than one 17 or 18 results in the great likelihood of other scores being drastically pulled down to the 8-10 range. Also, without freedom to reroll it will most often result in absolutely average (that is, no bonuses for anything) characters with scores no better than 13 or 14 if no really high score is attempted. Furthermore, like all “arrange/build to suit” methods it invariably creates dull, min/maxed, clone characters. Certain stats become “dump” stats because they are all but irrelevant to the predominant functions of the class being played. Unless you are a VERY committed roleplayer the temptation to min/max your rolls is overwhelming, and it becomes a noteworthy problem.
AD&D (2nd Edition) Players Option: Skills & Powers
Method VII:
A total of 75 points may be divided among the 6 ability scores, none lower than 3 or higher than 18. Although this sort of method is the epitome of fairness it’s also the epitome of vanilla. Without any random factors at all every swordsman will have stats that look just like every other swordsman, every wizard like every other wizard. It makes the character generation process fair but sterile, and for that reason alone I don’t care for it. It suffers from the min/max temptations and just is not as much fun as rolling at least some amount of dice.
Method VIII:
24d6 are distributed among ability scores. Each must have at least 3d6 but no more than 6d6. The dice are then rolled with the best 3 dice out of rolls of 4d6, 5d6, and 6d6 being used. The results are recorded. The problem with this method is that while it is a little more likely to get better stats for appropriate abilities it’s still random to an impractical degree. The allocation of more or fewer dice has too little effect on the outcome to make it a worthwhile exercise. See my anecdote about Method V from Unearthed Arcana where even 9d6 was producing single-digit results. You could again be stuck with poorly arranged, unwieldly characters like fighters with a 12 strength and 18 wisdom despite weighting Str with 6d6 and Wis with 3d6. And yet again you have issues with qualifying for the race or class you want.
Method IX:
2d6 are rolled and the result compared to a chart which tells you how many points you can spend on your ability scores and the maximum that any one score can be. The chart is weighted somewhat so that average results allow 74 points but perhaps limited to a 17 as your highest score; a 2 would allow only 68 points but a high of 18, and a 12 would allow 80 points but a maximum of only 15 for any one score. This is no better than Method VII and in some ways worse as it can once AGAIN prevent you from playing the class you want to play if you’re limited to scores of 15 but need a 17 to qualify for a class. Plus it takes the only real advantage of Method VII - absolute equality of potential for ability scores - and tosses it out.
Method X:
75 character points are divided as desired among ability scores but exceptional strength scores must be purchased at a rate of 10% per character point. Combines Method VII with a desire to keep percentile strength nominally in check. However it has no other advantage and the same disadvantages of Method VII. It also highlights the disproportionality of exceptional strength in ALL methods.
Third Edition D&D
Default Method:
Six rolls using best 3 of 4d6, arranged as desired. Same as Method I from 1st Edition and V from 2nd Edition but the thing you have to have drilled into your skill is that 3E stats are much more valuable than in previous editions. Anything above 11 is a bonus. For an old D&D grognard like me it’s still hard to break that appetite for a range of higher scores. But, this method certainly provides a good range of useful scores better that it would in earlier editions. 3rd Edition also specifies that rerolls be allowed if the characters combined bonuses add up to 0 or less, or if the character has no score higher than 13.
Standard Point Buy:
All ability scores begin at a base of 8. 25 points are given to purchase higher scores from a chart. The cost is point for point up to a score of 14 (6 points above 8 so a 6 point cost) and from there slides upwards to a score of 18 having a cost of 16 points. It is very like 2nd Editions Method VII except that the higher scores are assigned an escalating value. It has the effect of making a high score more of a rarity because of the extreme cost needed to obtain it while maintaining equity between individual players. They all have the same potential as regards their ability scores, but higher scores are not as casually obtained as in Method VII. It makes having more than one high score a clear impracticality due to the extreme cost paid of significantly lowered other abilities. Two 18’s or even an 18 and 17 combination is impossible. Two 16’s results in remaining scores like a 13 and three 8’s, or two 10’s and three 9’s. It seems to assume that high scores are in and of themselves so inherently problematic that only one should be allowed and even that should be at a savage cost. Furthermore it still suffers from the old drawback that all “arrange to taste” methods have - carbon copy characters. Every character of a given class ends up looking alike emphasizing the same stats and using the same dump stats.
Nonstandard Point Buy:
As Standard point buy except that the player is given more or fewer points to purchase scores, from as low as 15 points - making even a SINGLE 18 an impossibility and scores above 14 impractical - to 32 points which only slightly reduces the harshness of the restriction on high stats. All in all, Method VII from 2nd Edition would be markedly superior to any point buy variation simply by virtue of not being afraid to let players have higher scores.
Elite Array:
Scores of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 are arranged as desired. While such a character is quite clearly acceptible in power, since a mere 16 isn’t even considered it obviously assumes that scores above 15 are somehow BAD and that really irks me. It does, however, adhere to the default set of stats given for use by DM’s to create “elite” NPC’s. I repeat - the elite array is geared primarily for use by the DM in creating NPC’s. It only seems appropriate to even consider it if the DM is proceeding on the assumption that the PC’s should never be better than NPC’s at something. It also becomes an even more sterile fun-free method than Method VII because there isn’t even any math involved. If I were to use an array method - and by preference I wouldn’t - it would probably be a choice between various arrays. One would be 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, another would range from 17 to 10 trading having no penalty scores for not having an 18, and one would give two 18’s in exchange for more significant penalty score like a 7. Barring a campaign which specifically posits player characters as being highly ordinary or perhaps a generally low-power campaign (or at least what I would consider low power), there simply is nothing inherently BAD or unbalancing about high ability scores that warrants discouraging them much less forbidding them outright with a restrictive character generation method like this. But then there ARE those occasional campaigns where the DM wants low-power PC’s in a low-magic, gritty-realism sort of setting and this would then fit that perspective.
Floating Reroll:
As the Default Method except once and only once during rolling the character can reroll a single die out of one set of 4d6 that is rolled. It would slightly improve the chances of at getting at least one genuinely high roll or eliminating at least one really low roll. A little complicated as it requires some actual gambling strategery on the part of the player - to know when to reroll a low result and why. For example, with rolls of 1 2 6 6 a reroll might be a good idea to seek something like a 17 or 18. Rolls of 1 3 6 6 however give an already good result of 15. But then what if one of the first rolls the player makes is 1 2 3 1 ? Should he reroll to eliminate a really low result? The real problem however is that it ultimately it doesn’t matter. The impact of that single die is generally going to be irrelevant to the larger game and just as likely irrelevant to the stat generation.
Organic Method:
Roll six times recording in order using the best 3 of 4d6. Reroll any one ability score taking the best of the two. Then switch any two scores. In a strange way I like this. It is the method I have now settled on for use - though I will still continue to look for another method. It would likely allow the elimination of at least one low score, possibly even replacing it with a very high one, or perhaps merely improving a mediocre score a bit. It’s the score switch that I like, enabling some customization of the results so that a character need not be saddled with a low score where it’s most needed, but then challenging the player with a character who is almost always going to have notable imperfections, yet not “gimping” the character or making it unplayable. Such characters will be qualified for their job, but often not ideally qualified.
Since 3E eliminated the class and race qualifications this method now enables what Method I in second edition (the “Iron Man” method) seemingly purported to do - challenge the players with characters that need to be taken as-is, warts and all, and exercise the imagination to account for their inadequacies. Even if players came to me and asked for a really hardcore campaign this is the method I’d use. But given a reasonable DM who allows a few rerolls of overly-average characters it will produce fine results and seem to me to be the best comprimise of all possible stat-generation methods.
There once was a time where the 1E/2E perspective about maintaining balance had me convinced that players shouldn’t have complete control over their characters creation in ways that I now consider almost fascist. Though I never inflicted it upon any players I secretly held the belief that the only proper way to roll up characters was the Iron Man method (3d6, in order, six times). Only after 3E had been out for a while did I really embrace the notion that, “It is not a crime for PC’s to be good at something,” and start to rethink the very fundamental reasoning behind character generation methods.
Customized Average:
Six rolls of 3d6 arranged as desired. Also, the character may be rerolled only if the bonuses add up to -3 or less or if there is no score of 12 or higher. The allowance to arrange as desired is good given the low values produced by the harsh 3d6 bell curve, but the lowered threshold for rerolls is whacked. Though it acknowledges that the average rolls are going to be much lower, a total of -3 of accumulated bonuses is a horrible array of ability scores and indicates a character who, despite the name of this method, is BELOW average in his capabilities. While very hardcore roleplayers, realists, sadists and masochists may like this method I think it blows.
Random Average:
3d6 rolled six times and recorded in order. The character may be rerolled if the bonuses add up to -3 or less or if there is no score of 12 or higher. Only marginally less hardcore than Method I from 2E but only because it provides a threshold for rerolling. Compared to the Customized Average method just above it’s worse in that you’ll need to either play really low-grade characters of classes you didn’t really want, or do a lot of rerolling to get something palatable - even by THESE low standards.
High Powered Characters:
Six rolls using the best 3 of 5d6 and arranged as desired. Reroll if modifiers total less than +2 or there is no score of 15 or higher. I’d go for this one if it weren’t for the fact that it really does make high-powered characters. Low scores are TOO rare and high scores become too common. What I prefer is a method that generates a spread of of lower and higher scores on a consistent basis while still being random rolls of dice. It’s still no guarantee of Supermen but given the easy access to bonuses in 3E rules it’s close. Possibly useful for a really tough game though I’d suggest that scaling up the monsters with higher CR’s or advancement is a better approach to a tough game world than Uber-ing the PC’s.
Methods from Other Sources
Free Choice:
Not at all a common approach but some DM’s simply let players choose their ability scores out of the blue. No rolling, and generally no maximums or limitations except the players own good sense about what is reasonable.
Double Drop:
Players make 7 rolls using the best 3 of 4d6, then drop one of the 7 and arrange as desired.
Fixed Dice Pool:
Each player uses the same set of 18 individual die results, adding as many to an ability as desired so long as no leftover points are wasted (similar to 3E Method VII) and results for all scores are between 3 and 18. A typical pool would be 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1, though it could be weighted as the DM sees fit. This is a method I read of recently that I think is very palatable, perhaps the most palatable of “diceless” methods. It allows more than one high score to be engineered but without adversely driving remaining scores unduly far into negatives and low or average scores are needed to obtain the highs. Its only real drawback is again the complete removal of the random element making the exercise a sterile and calculating one while promoting clone, formulaic characters. A slight modification would be to only allow 3 “dice” to be combined for any ability score.
Randomly Generated Dice Pool:
A logical modification of the Fixed Dice Pool where the 18d6 (or perhaps more or fewer dice) are rolled all at once and then combined into 6 ability scores of between 3 and 18. Better than Fixed Pool as it reintroduces the random element. A further modification would be that only 3 dice can be combined together to create a given score. Yet again it retains a lot of the sterility and unoriginality in character design of free-arrangement methods.
Randomly Assigned Dice Pool (Dealing Cards):
This method is commonly executed with playing cards though it essentially is a Dice Pool method. The way it works is that cards from a standard poker deck are used to represent dice rolls. Ace=1, deuce=2, etc. In one option there are 4 of each suit from ace to 6. They are shuffled and six seperate “hands” of 4 cards each are dealt. The best three cards are kept in each hand and the total value of the hands equals the ability scores and they are then assigned as desired. Other options generally just alter the available pool values (and may require more than one deck of cards). For example, a pool of 1 ace, 2 deuces, 3 threes… on up to 6 sixes and then a joker or two added in. Hands of 3 cards are then dealt whose totals are the ability score values, with the joker being a “wildcard” that doubles the value of any one other card that is dealt in a given hand.
Best of Both Worlds:
Not really a method on its own as such but a combination of two or more random generation methods. A player uses one method to generate ability scores and then is allowed to go through using a second, often entirely different method and keeping the best results. I’ve seen it presented as either the players choice between the two different sets of numbers that each method creates, or generating one score at a time and keeping the best of the two results for a given ability score.
18 out of 21:
21d6 are rolled. The best 18 dice are kept. The remaining dice are freely combined; 3 to each ability score. Obviously modifiable to any number of d6, not just 21.
The Matrix:
Well we didn’t call it that at the time - we didn’t call it anything. It’s from some of the REALLY old games of D&D that I was involved in where more variety and better stats were desired for character creation. It migrated from OD&D to 1E before being supplanted almost exclusively by the 4d6 method (with a few brief, aborted forays into others). It was a chart that organized ability score rolls by race. You’d look on the line for your chosen character race and find the dice combinations to roll for each specific stat. The only specific examples I can recall are that a dwarf would roll 4d8 for strength, but only 3d4 for dexterity. (Dwarves were highly favored in these older games, even OVERLY favored. But their weakness was always Dex. Combined with a penalty to rolls from wearing heavy armor, dwarves became like turtles turned on their backs if they were knocked down.) There was originally no attempt to maintain equity of ANY kind between character races and score values with this method. No example of the original chart survives today from the campaigns that used it so it can’t be analyzed objectively It did seem weighted to the ability score ranges suggested in the 1E racial min/max charts so it could be re-built quite easily if you like the notion.
It would undoubtedly end up rather similar to Method V(UA) in 1st Edition AD&D. Though it would deal with ALL races and not just humans it would suffer from the same drawbacks. Primarily that would be that the weighting was still far from any kind of guarantee of appropriate stats. But I must admit that it has a certain twisted, Old School, we-were-too-young-to-know-any-better feel to it, and I’d go back to it in a heartbeat if anyone else actually wanted to do it. I think I’m going to re-invent the thing anyway just for grins. 
6×6 Matrix:
Using best 3 of 4d6 (or strait 3d6 or whatever), generate six sets of six ability scores each, putting them into a 6×6 matrix. For example, using 3 of 4d6 I got:
| A | B | C | D | E | F | |
| A | 7 | 14 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 13 |
| B | 9 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 10 |
| C | 13 | 15 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 12 |
| D | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 17 |
| E | 15 | 13 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 10 |
| F | 13 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 17 | 10 |
The player may then select a set of 6 ability scores by reading in a straight line anywhere on that matrix, whether that be reading a row forwards or backwards, reading a column up or down, or one of the two diagonals backwards or forwards. That gives 28 seperate combinations that a player can choose from 36 generated scores.
In the example matrix above look at the only 18 that’s there. Take row E left to right. 15 Str, 18 Wis. Not bad for a fighting cleric. Take the same row right to left. 18 Dex, 15 Cha. Good for a lying rogue. Or concentrating more on the Cha with the Dex as a bit of a fluke you can think in terms of a missile-using paladin, or a defensible sorceror or bard.
Now look at column E reading top to bottom. You have two great scores in Wis and Cha but you have some noteworthy weakness everywhere else. Read it bottom to top and you have a good, stereotypical mindless fighter with 17 Str and 18 Dex, although the 9 Con might be a tough pill to swallow. Taking column D from top to bottom might be better for that because it would give you lower Str and Dex but better scores over the remaining stats.
Looking for the highest Int I can get for a wizard character it would be row A read from left to right. Reading it right to left it becomes the best Con score available.
This is an interesting method that has much to recommend it. I think one of the things I like most is the innate “handicapping” that it requires. In finding the best set of stats for your desired character you almost certainly have to make some compromises, but you have a choice among which set of compromises you prefer. In that respect it is like the Organic Method, which I still prefer, but this is a good second option and I personally would have no trouble using it.
Mirror Method:
I’ve seen it (or similar variations) mentioned a couple of times now and it’s intriguing. Make three stat rolls using best 3 of 4d6. For the last three stats subtract your first sets of rolls from 25. Maximum of 18 on any stat So if you roll an 18 one of your stats will be 7 (25-18). 7 will be the lowest mirror score you’ll get from a high initial roll. But if you roll a 7 or LOWER your corresponding stat from that will be 18, making 18’s much more common. I’d personally adjust this due to the inordinate number of 18’s that are certain to be generated. It’s a VERY high powered method. I’d say subtract from 23 instead of 25. 18’s will still be more likely than they otherwise would though there would also be the low-end of having stats of 5. I wouldn’t recommend it at this point without a bit of tweaking and test rolling, but it has interesting dynamics that I think have potential.
There is the assumption here that scores would be arranged as desired after being rolled, but that could also be changed to spice it up more. For example, as part of the generation process you could have players determine two stats at a time. They would pick any two stats, roll dice, and then assign the roll and the mirror result to their choice of the two stats. Or they could pick THREE stats that they will roll dice for in order, and then apply the mirror stats for those rolls as desired among the remaining three.
Another variation on the method is that rather than rolling dice at all the player simply PICKS his desired stats and the associated mirror results. That way even if you DO pick high stats you’re guaranteed to get low-grade mirror stats to offset them. When subtracting from 25 to get the mirror you have to pick stats of 15 or lower in order to NOT get stats with a penalty.
General Modifications
Some modifications to the various random generation methods repeatedly pop up. First is the rerolling of die results of 1. This is often extended to the entire campaign where players are allowed to reroll results of 1 on most, if not all of the dice throws they make for ANY purpose.
Another is the free assignment of the rolls may be rescinded. Players can either record the rolls in the order they are generated in the same order as the ability scores are presented; that is Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. A second slight variation to that is that as each ability score is generated the player must immediately assign it to an ability score (thus the player must gamble on what his remaining dice rolls may or may not produce in assigning a result to an ability score. That is, if the player gets a result of 15 does he put it into a prime requisite for the class or something else as he hopes to get an even higher result?
Then, of course, there are the minimums that can be set for any method. The 3E default is that a character may be rerolled if before adjusting for race there is no score above 13 or the ability mods add up to 0 or less. But it’s easy to add to or adjust those standards. For example it could be added that no score may be below 9. Scores that are below 9 could either simply become 9, allow a reroll of that ability score only, or allow rerolling the entire character. Instead of needing at least one score above 13 or mods above 0, it could be at least one score above 14 and mods totalling more than +3.
A Review of the Best Methods for 3rd Edition Character Generation
Now I have my biases regarding character generation methods and ability scores which should already be obvious from the comments I’ve made above regarding various methods. I like to see characters with at least a 15 in something if not more than one. Though that’s probably a relic of my AD&D upbringing in the game I must admit that there is something strangely compelling about pure Iron Man rolling - but I wouldn’t go there for just any old campaign. What high scores meant for earlier editions still seems to mean the same for me even though I know better. I also despise the idea that absolute equity among characters is somehow a requirement. I want to see some characters that truly ARE better than others. It’s a fallacy anyway that guaranteeing identical stats actually makes characters equal or that it affords them equal opportunity. Different class needs, different skills and feats chosen, different magic items and equipment, player skill and enthusiasm, and the preferences and biases that the DM may have in creating and running his campaign all combine to make ability scores a vastly less important factor than some would assert.
I like to roll dice for character generation. I think I mentioned that already somewere above. Randomness in generating a character is more fun than simply engineering a character. And also I’ve come to dislike the innocuous-looking steel trap that is arranging all ability scores freely - the first step in what is known as min/maxing, a.k.a. maximizing the lethality index, a.k.a. power-gaming, munchkinism, etc. It is so highly illogical and at cross-purposes to willingly handicap a character when you don’t have to by NOT placing scores in only their most optimal postions (using the least used stats as dumps). I’ve become convinced that at least some mandatory take-the-rolls-as-they-come is actually of greater benefit than complete freedom to min/max. YM will obviously V. Min/maxing your very core ability scores was NECESSARY in earlier versions in order to get bonuses that meant anything to the character class you were creating. That just isn’t true anymore in 3E where scores of 12+ receive bonues.
Players should be faced with some degree of challenge in having to create a character with “flaws” that are not of their own choosing. Being able to play the class and race you desire, and having your character be competent at the class chosen by having at least one appropriately placed high stat is now generally enough. Some stats or the placement of those stats should be beyond the players control at creation if more realistic characters are ever going to be seen in a campaign rather than identically min/maxed, sterile, uninspired clones.
There should be a minimum acceptible level for stats for any method that includes actual random elements. And I’d emphasize the word “minimum” there because more importantly the DM must be able to exercise authority to allow players to reroll characters even if they meet “minimum” standards. Why? Because random generation is random - it isn’t guaranteed that the results created by more than one player will be appropriately compatible with everyone. A character with nothing below 15 can become a monstrosity when run alongside a character who has a 16 as his best stat and nothing else above 12. Players must be informed of this and freely accepting of its implications before rolling characters begins. Absolute equity among character ability scores is nonsense, but that doesn’t mean that equity is completely irrelevant. That is what the DM is there for - adjudication of situations that are not or cannot be covered in detail by the rules.
A few final notes. First, there is still something to be said for equity in stats when there is great disparity in stats, especially between PC’s of the same class. Just as super-strength characters blew any “normal” strength fighter out of the water in earlier editions, a fighter in 3E with an 18 Str and nothing else below 15 can unacceptibly overwhelm a fighter PC with a lesser strength in the same party who might otherwise be considered to have adequate stats. A player who IS lucky enough to create an Uber-stat character can easily slide into the trap of thinking that it allows them to run the show for all the PC’s and hog the spotlight from that point on. Such a character requires MORE restraint, not less, in order to keep the other players of lower-stat characters interested in the game and not overwhelmed and buried by an overeager super-character. Just as a DM needs to allow an uncharacteristically low or average set of rolls to be rerolled, he also needs to either declare a super-character unfit for mixing with lesser characters or have a heartfelt chat with the player about keeping his stats and his roleplaying in perspective - and laying out some potential repurcussions if it becomes a problem.
Secondly, different concepts about a game world may lend themselves much more strongly to certain methods. For example, a game where all the PC’s ARE clones would scream for using a default array of some kind. A grim, gritty, “realistic” game setting would lend itself more to more stringent “Iron Man” methods, as would games where an emphasis is intended to be placed on player creativity and adaptibility to run ANY kind of character depending on what they can “qualify” for. And those unfortunate DM’s who actually DO have to worry about cheating players need to turn to methods of character creation that emphasize equity and verifiability.
Thirdly, unless the DM has VERY compelling reasons to limit the maximum ability score to something below 18 then ANY method used must be able to create a character with at least ONE maximum score - an 18 before making adjustments for race. That’s my opinion and you’re welcome to it. One such compelling reason to do otherwise might be that the campaign is going to be very low-power, very gritty, and “realistic”. An 18 would be out of place simply because everything else is being restricted to more of a real-world human-normal range. Anything less than that and IMO the DM is just being a wanker.
And the winners are…
- First runner up- Six rolls using the best 3 of 4d6 and arranged as desired. If the total bonuses are 0 or less or there is no score higher than 13 then reroll. Still a fine all-around method. It’s the one most commonly used and the least likely to draw complaints from players.
- Honorable mention - the 6×6 Matrix. Mostly because it does handle the issues I seem to have regarding stat generation and is still customizable to a fair degree. One of the issues I have with it though (that I didn’t mention before) is that it calls for TOO much dice rolling for obtaining just one character. Repeating it for generating more than one would be highly cumbersome - and yes that can sometimes be a factor.
- And the most preferred method is … the Organic Method from 3E. Roll 4d6 and record the scores in order. Pick one score and reroll it taking the higher of the two rolls. If the total bonuses are 0 or less or there is no score higher than 14 then you may reroll automatically. Otherwise, switch the position of two scores (and only two) as desired. If this fails to produce a character that is viable and acceptible though still meeting the reroll cutoff then simply ask the DM (me) to reroll. If it’s as bad as all that your wish will likely be granted. A “hardcore” method that balances all the considerations I have as both a player and a DM. It can even result in characters whose highest score is NOT in the “prime requisite” for the class which is something I haven’t seen in a PC for 20 years.
As an example of the organic method, take a paladin character. Dice are rolled and he has str15, dex14, con16, int10, wis13, cha7. The low Cha is rerolled but unfortunately is no better. The player would ideally want both high Str and high Cha, arguably the two most important stats to a paladin. If left to his own devices the PC would have almost certainly used Int as a dump and ended up with str16, dex13, con15, int7, wis16, cha15 (or close to that). Extremely vanilla, uninspired and uninteresting. However, as-is the character has an adequate Str but unacceptably low Cha for a paladin. The player doesn’t want to switch with his best current stat of Con because it would leave him badly wanting for hit points. So perhaps instead he accepts a switch from Dex leaving him with str15, dex7, con16, int10, wis13, cha14. Essentially, the player has a choice of taking a flaw in dex or con to bring his cha to a preferred level. It’s a hard choice but the end result is still a VERY playable character that nonetheless has interesting flaws that the player would never by choice have built into his character. The character could obtain dex-enhancement items to cover up his flaw or as he goes up levels dump his stat increases into Dex for a more permanent solution.
If the same stats were rolled for a wizard character it wouldn’t be a hard choice to switch Con and Int, leaving a wizard who can actually do some good if he has to with a dagger. Or he could switch Str and Int producing a wizard with a superior number of hit points than would be usual. Both FAR more interesting choices for a character than a player would opt for if left entirely to his own devices to min/max.
by: Duane VanderPol
Popularity: 4%
