D&D 5E A Proper Ability Score Generation Preference Poll

[pemerton]

In my recently-started Classic Traveller game players rolled stats (2d6) and rolled for their lifepaths, survival, skills acquired, etc - that's what Traveller is about!

In my two 4e games, stats were assigned via points-buy - 4e is a very different game from Traveller, with stats playing a very different role. Each character's stat profile is different, although (unsurprisingly) no one dumped their main stat. I think the idea that points-buy leads to cookie-cutter is overrated, at least in the 4e context.

In my Cortex Fantasy Hack game, I pre-generated the PCs, although the players have had a chance to modify them a bit since (via expenditure of earned XP). There's not really such a thing as "stats" in that system, let alone rolling for stats.

The idea that there's a single best way to generate PCs strikes me as pretty ridiculous. Different RPGs, and different campaigns within a given RPG, have different context, goals of play, etc, which means that PC generation will be different too.

 

[ro]

2d6 +4 for most characters
3d6 replace one die with a 4 for heroic character's

Both generate scored of 6-16, with the heroic version allowing for a slightly higher average.

I haven't heard of this method before. I like it!

 

[Satyrn]

Why is it that when people say they 'most likely' could guess at a characters ability scores based off class and standard array that other people pull out their against type/subpar characters to prove them wrong?

I have an alternative hypothesis for why this happens than "to prove them wrong."

Maybe it's just that "against type/subpar characters" are far more common than we think. Like, maybe lots of us make lots of such characters as a matter of course.

I mean, we already said he's wrong because we know we don't create the Standard Array cookie cutter characters he thinks we do. We could pull out any of characters and we'd probably prove him wrong

 

[Satyrn]

Heh, to be fair, looking at my 5 PC's, 14 Con's are awfully common. So, I can somewhat see the point. Then again, my entire group, barring 1, dump statted Strength. Which makes an exploration heavy campaign with no casters a LOT of fun. The last session's encounter with Chuul's in a lake was a blast as the Chuuls kept dragging their grappled opponents into and then under the water.

Yeah, let's see the ranged heavy party deal with that one.

I was in that sort of situation with my 8 Str gnome battlemaster. My solution was to gulp down a can of spinach potion of frost giant strength and save the rest of the party.

It was awesome!

 

[Caliban]

I have an alternative hypothesis for why this happens than "to prove them wrong."

Maybe it's just that "against type/subpar characters" are far more common than we think. Like, maybe lots of us make lots of such characters as a matter of course.

I mean, we already said he's wrong because we know we don't create the Standard Array cookie cutter characters he thinks we do. We could pull out any of characters and we'd probably prove him wrong

5e is also far more forgiving of "against type/subpar characters" than 3rd edition was, due to Bounded Accuracy and stats being capped at 20. You can build for versatility or a weird gimmick instead of specializing in damage or whatever and while you may be behind on attack/damage or Spell DC's for awhile, you will eventually catch up.

I've made a few characters whose "build" doesn't really come together until level 11 or 12. Not something I usually bother doing, but sometimes you want to see if something weird will actually work in practice.

 

[cbwjm]

What even are the typical ability scores. Is it following the standard array or specialising in a couple of abilities to get a 16 in each? Would a High Elf fighter with starting scores of Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 11 be considered atypical just because you want them to be decent with a traditional elven weapon, the longsword?

 

[Caliban]

What even are the typical ability scores. Is it following the standard array or specialising in a couple of abilities to get a 16 in each? Would a High Elf fighter with starting scores of Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 11 be considered atypical just because you want them to be decent with a traditional elven weapon, the longsword?

I'm guessing the "default" optimized scores would be 14 or 15 in your primary stat (raised to 16 with racial bonuses), a 14 in con (possibly 15 if you plan on taking Resilient Con later, or a +1 racial bonus to Con), and then a 14 in Dex (if you aren't a heavy armor wearer and Dex wasn't your primary stat, and you may put 15 in it if you have +1 dex from your race) - otherwise a 14 or 15 in whatever you consider to be your tertiary stat (Charisma for Swashbucklers and Paladins, Wisdom for Rangers, etc).

Specific races and character goals will tweak those scores. I've played a lot of 5e and have over a dozen different characters at level 5 to level 15. Now I deliberately build weird or against type characters because I've tried the standard optimizations and I'm looking for more interesting things to try. My latest is Honey, the Badger totem Halfling Barbarian. She's a feral halfling who was raised by badgers and forest fae. Or Tyrion Coinspinner - a halfling sorcerer/wizard who bends fate and can't control his magic (wild mage/diviner with the Luck feat),

 

[Wulffolk]

What strikes me as odd, when it comes to using point-buy or an array, is that most people want their character to be "special" and yet seem to prefer the methods that guarantee that their character is in no way special at all. If everybody is the exact same then they are now normal, not special. I just don't understand that paradox, which is why I prefer rolling.

However, I completely understand the need for uniformity for things like AL.

 

[Satyrn]

What strikes me as odd, when it comes to using point-buy or an array, is that most people want their character to be "special" and yet seem to prefer the methods that guarantee that their character is in no way special at all. If everybody is the exact same then they are now normal, not special. I just don't understand that paradox, which is why I prefer rolling.

However, I completely understand the need for uniformity for things like AL.

It's a matter of what we consider special, and we're all gonna view it a little differently.

For me, when it comes to ability scores, my character is Special if his ability scores are better than those of the unwashed masses. Using the Standard Array accomplishes that just fine (assuming the Unwashed Array is all tens or the like).


If we're talking about how my character is Special when compared to other PCs, I like to use character features for that. My fighter is special because he can do these cool maneuvers that the ranger can't, while ranger is special because he can do these cool things with a bow that my fighter can't.

 

[Oofta]

What strikes me as odd, when it comes to using point-buy or an array, is that most people want their character to be "special" and yet seem to prefer the methods that guarantee that their character is in no way special at all. If everybody is the exact same then they are now normal, not special. I just don't understand that paradox, which is why I prefer rolling.

However, I completely understand the need for uniformity for things like AL.

Isn't that line from The Incredibles? "If everybody is special than nobody is special"?

Why do you have to have better ability scores than everyone else in the group to be special? What happens when you roll worse ability scores than everyone else? Compared to most run-of-the-mill commoners, PCs are special. Compared to the rest of the team? It's not a competition.

What makes my character special is RP and the stories I build with my friends.