D&D 5E Ability Score Point Cost − what does a 16 cost?

[Blue]

It's probably worth making everything below 8 a unique cost at least, to create at least some decision point. (7=-1, 6=-2, 5=-3, 4=-4, 3=-5)

I think that there is a segment of players that that would just encourage big dump stat(s) so they could specialize elsewhere. Especially if 16+ were available and they needed more points.

If someone wants to play someone with that large a penalty, have it be solely because it supports their character concept, not as an optimization ploy.

 

[Xeviat]

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION]. Your costs for the high ability scores seem too cheap.

Suppose the official 27 points to spend on an array, plus the race with +2 and +1.

18: 19 points
11: 2 points
10: 2 points
10: 2 points
10: 2 points
6: −1 point

18 11 10 10 10 6 → 20 12 10 10 10 6

OR

18 10 10 10 10 8 → 20 11 10 10 10 8



Or, if I need two strong abilities, then gain the following.

16 13 12 10 10 8 → 18 14 12 10 10 8



Now compare the above arrays with official arrays.

13 13 13 12 12 12 → 15 14 13 12 12 12
15 14 13 12 10 8 → 16 16 13 12 10 8
15 14 14 10 10 8 → 16 16 14 10 10 8
14 14 13 12 12 8 → 16 14 14 12 12 8




So, which array would you rather have?

20 12 10 10 10 6
20 11 10 10 10 8
18 14 12 10 10 8

16 16 14 10 10 8
16 14 14 12 12 8
16 16 13 12 10 8
15 14 13 12 12 12

Without hesitation I would choose one of the first three arrays. In comparison, the official four arrays pale in comparison.

The arrays are simply unequal.

Considering I strongly prefer to build characters with two 14s in secondary stats and Con, I’d likely choose something like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 8 (or 10, 10), but we are different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ro]

I think that there is a segment of players that that would just encourage big dump stat(s) so they could specialize elsewhere. Especially if 16+ were available and they needed more points.

If someone wants to play someone with that large a penalty, have it be solely because it supports their character concept, not as an optimization ploy.

That's true, but there are in-game consequences outside of role play for negative modifiers. I would more likely limit the buy to allow a 16 but not a 17 or 18, and not bother dropping things below 8. If I were to allow buy all the way up to 18, I might try to come up with some balancing rule: "For each stat you choose of 17 or 18 before racial adjustments, one more of Dex, Str, Con or Wis must be 7 or lower after racial adjustments."

 

[Xeviat]

Allowing players to purchase a 16 (for more points than it cost to increase 14 to 15) also opens up other race/class combinations. A 16 primary ability score is kinda balanced for in the system. This leaves out some classes if you don’t have at least a +1.

When I offered the system above, no one built their characters with higher than a 16 to start, even though they were rather archetypical characters. The Goliath Barbarian went with 16 Str an 16 Con. The Elf Eldritch Knight took 16 Dex, 14 Con, 14 Int. No one pushed for an 18, because it was better on their skills and saving throws to save it. Wait for those ASIs, that don’t care what your stats start as, to be increased.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yaarel]

Sorry it still does not compute.

You can make it expensive but all that accomplishes is having MAD classes not choose it. SAD classes run by minmaxers will still choose it.

The problem with high ability score inflation goes beyond single-ability dependent versus multiple-ability dependent.

Inflation makes the arrays themselves become unequal and unfair.



For example, after race improvement, one of the best official arrays possible is:

16 16 14 10 10 8.

Yet the proposed too-cheap array makes possible: 18 14 12 10 10 8.

The multiple-ability dependent character would normally go for the official 16 16 14 10 10 8. Among the official arrays, the single-ability dependent character would normally go for the same official array. The score higher than 16 is unavailable (the odd number 17 being generally a waste of points that could be used elsewhere). And the extra 16 and 14 is useful for saves and so on.

But with the cheap cost array, the single-ability character can now get the precious 18 − and no meaningful sacrifice for it: 18 14 12 10 10 8. A brokenly high primary, and still all around solid scores for the auxiliary abilities. Indeed, even the multiple-ability character is also likely to pick this same array, with the primary outshining everything and the auxiliaries good and not bad compared to other official arrays. The cheap array is better than the best that official can offer.

In order to prevent such arrays from being strictly superior to official arrays, there must be a sacrifice − that hurts − to compensate the benefit of the 18 in the primary. In this case, it means raising the price of the 16 that is underlying this 18 before the +2 race improvements.



A point cost system that balances should look something like the following.

The resulting race-improved array should at most look more like: 18 12 10 10 10 8.

Then it would be more comparable in value to picking the official array: 16 16 14 10 10 8.

Even the single-ability character might still prefer the official top three 16 16 14 over the 18 12 10.




(And we arent even talking yet about what happens when a broken 20 becomes available!)

 

[Yaarel]

The 4-Times-Prime Method

In the array, one highest ability score costs four times (x4) the listed cost.

You have 27 points to spend to purchase six ability scores for your array. First, decide your primary ability score. Multiply its listed cost by four. Subtract this total from the 27 points. Afterward, use the remaining points to purchase the remaining ability scores at their costs listed below. These remaining ability scores must be equal to or lower than your primary ability score.

Ability Score: Cost
18: 8 points
17: 7 points
16: 6 points
15: 5 points
14: 4 points
13: 3 points
12: 2 points
11: 1 point
10: 0 points

9 or 8: −1 point
7 or 6: −2 points



The 4-Times-Prime Method is a different way to think about ability score costs. It takes into account a number of concerns, and generates arrays that are roughly comparable in value. It attends to the primary ability score being more important than the other ability scores.

A high primary causes a harsher array. A modest primary causes a solid robustness.



Examples

15 14 12 12 10 9
Cost (5 x4) + (4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + −1) = 27 points
... comparable to the default array ... and after typical race improvement becomes
→ 16 16 12 12 10 9

13 13 13 13 13 13
Cost (3 x4) + (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) = 27 points
... a not bad choice for a no-feat Human
→ 14 14 14 14 14 14

16 13 10 10 10 10
Cost (6 x4) + (3 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0) = 27 points
... one of the best choices for a typical race improvement
→ 18 14 10 10 10 10

16 15 10 10 9 9
Cost (6 x4) + (5 + 0 + 0 + −1 + −1) = 27 points
... a not bad choice for two-ability dependency
→ 18 16 10 10 9 9

15 14 14 10 10 9
Cost (5 x4) + (4 + 4 + 0 + 0 + −1) = 27 points
... a good choice for multiple-ability dependency
→ 16 16 14 10 10 9

14 14 14 14 10 9
Cost (4 x4) + (4 +4 + 4 + 0 + −1) = 27 points
... also a good choice for multiple ability dependency
→ 16 14 14 14 10 10

18 9 9 9 9 9
Cost (8 x4) + (−1 + −1 + −1 + −1 + −1) = 27 points
... a tough choice to improve to a 20 at Level 1
→ 20 10 9 9 9 9

18 10 10 9 7 7
Cost (8 x4) + (0 + 0 + −1 + −2 + −2) = 27 points
... reduces down to two negatives after improvement
→ 20 10 10 10 7 7

18 11 10 7 7 7
Cost (8 x4) + (0 + 0 + −1 + −2 + −2) = 27 points
... reduces down to two negatives after improvement
→ 20 12 10 7 7 7

 

[CapnZapp]

A point cost system that balances should look something like the following.

The resulting race-improved array should at most look more like: 18 12 10 10 10 8.

Then it would be more comparable in value to picking the official array: 16 16 14 10 10 8.

Even the single-ability character might still prefer the official top three 16 16 14 over the 18 12 10.




(And we arent even talking yet about what happens when a broken 20 becomes available!)

In essence you want to allow 18s but make them borderline unappealing. This means only the most minmaxed and most SAD classes will consider them; the few builds that can stomach so low secondary and tertiary values.

I must admit it appears to me you have come full circle.

To have some semblance of balance, a high score (higher-than-raw) makes for a very boring array (18 followed by a lot of 10's)...

...which brings us back to the obvious solution: just don't allow it. Or accept the inherent inequality in generous arrays since those are the fun ones.

What I mean that your costs might work for you, but there's a reason WotC shied away from them. This is something math doesn't tell you.

 

[Yaarel]

To have some semblance of balance, a high score (higher-than-raw) makes for a very boring array (18 followed by a lot of 10's)...

...which brings us back to the obvious solution: just don't allow it. Or accept the inherent inequality in generous arrays since those are the fun ones.

Yeah. The 5e design team knew high ability scores were problematic and imbalancing, and decided to simply disallow them.

The *only* way an array with a high score can balance alongside arrays without a high score, is if the high score is followed by ‘boring’ 10s or lower.

The design team were cognizant about this, and decided to remove high scores from the options.



An objection is, they cut off at 15 as the highest number possible in an array. Under close examination, it appears that there is enough room for 16 (→ 18) as a high number, while still allowing an ‘interesting’ number or two to follow afterward, while remaining comparable to the power of the other arrays.

And if a player doesnt care about ‘boring’ numbers, or even one or more ‘painful’ numbers, there is good reason to allow options for very high numbers too.

Apparently, the design team erred on the side of caution, and stopped at 15, and were waiting to see how the brand new 5e system played out at large, before messing around with very high numbers.

 

[Yaarel]

I have to say, I took Xeviat to task for his point system allowing this array:

16 13 12 10 10 8 ( → 18 14 12 10 10 8)

But my own results − twice now, with two unrelated methods − produced a similar result.

The original post using the tried-and-true 3d6 statistics, produces: 16 13 12 10 10 8. Exactly the same!

And now the experimental 4-Times-Prime method produces: 16 13 10 10 10 10 and 16 13 12 10 10 7. Both comparable.

I view, the result here with the 4xPrime method as slightly more perfect. But in all cases these arrays are comparable in balance to the official arrays.

The improvement to 18 14 10 10 10 10 and similar is a noticeably powerful choice. But this is more an artifact of the +2 race improvement, and the benefit of a resulting +4 d20 bonus in the context of bounded accuracy. The raw array itself is balanced compared to other arrays.

A 16 in the context of these other numbers is balanced, and while an Intelligent choice for a player, is something that a DM can consider safe for the game.

16 13 10 10 10 10 and similar, is fair.

This array is at the threshold. Arrays that are noticeably better than this start to imbalance the game. But this is itself is solid and a good standard to evaluate other arrays with a very high ability score.

 

[Yaarel]

I remember that one of the Unearthed Arcana articles has an alternative method for generating ability scores. (Unearthed Arcana: Quick Characters, 7/25 2016). I appreciate there is a (quasi) official method to assign a 16 array. Under scrutiny, it is obviously unbalanced ... but not egregious. Heh, I figure some of the posters in this thread would appreciate it.

Roll d6: Ability Score Array
1 18, 14, 12, 8, 8, 6
2 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8
3 16, 16, 12, 10, 8, 8
4 16, 12, 12, 12, 10, 8
5 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12
6 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10



Obviously

16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8

is way better than

14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10.

But still, the 16 array isnt too far from the 16 array that the 3d6 method in this thread arrives at.

16, 13, 10, 10, 10, 10.

The difference is only about four points and only concerning a non-primary score.



Also, notice. Even with the overflowing generosity of the arrays in the Unearthed Arcana article, notice how many scores below 10 that an array must have before an 18 even becomes thinkable. Three: 8, 8, 6.