D&D 5E Dice Rolling for beginning ability scores...redux

[Casimir Liber]

One of the things I liked about AD&D and BECMI was rolling ability scores. Was pondering recently how it could be adapted to 5e and "levelling" beginning characters with feats. e.g. mid range = one feat, lucky rolling = zero feats, unlucky rolling = two feats

So rating would be determining the overall "value" of the dice rolled, maybe according to this table - question is - what point spread = "normal", and where are the bars to one more or one less feat (or more tweaks)

One for the mathematicians - looking at you @Cleon

Ability Score Point Cost​

ScoreCost
3 = - 9 (?)
4 = -7 (?)
5 = -5 (?)
6 = -3
7 = -1
8 = 0
9 =1
10=2
11=3
12= 4
13= 5
14= 7
15 = 9
16 =11 (?)
17 = 13 (?)
18 = 15 (?)

 

[aco175]

I tend to think that +5 in total modifier bonuses is a good character. So if you have +3 in your main ability and a couple +1s around, then you should be ok.

Is that worth a free feat? I think that everyone will get free feats next year with the new rules/edition.

Is a feat worth +2 in an ability? Used to be, but so many feats have +1 and cool power making +2 not worth it.

You could look at a feat just costing points at creation and make it in a range where someone could get 2 and have modifiers below 5. Might be harder to get it right.

 

[ichabod]

I'm a bit confused here. Is the point system meant to be based on the probability of the roll? That looks more like standard point buy, which is based on the ability bonus (so 16, 17, 18 should be 12, 15, and 19).

If you are looking for a range of bad stats worth an extra feat, I would look at total bonus. Then look at standard deviations of that, which could be calculated with some simulations. Edit: actually, it wouldn't be that hard to calculate exactly. Maybe in the morning.

 

[Casimir Liber]

I'm a bit confused here. Is the point system meant to be based on the probability of the roll? That looks more like standard point buy, which is based on the ability bonus (so 16, 17, 18 should be 12, 15, and 19).

If you are looking for a range of bad stats worth an extra feat, I would look at total bonus. Then look at standard deviations of that, which could be calculated with some simulations.

I was using the point buy as a starting point, I guess with the assumption that high-end ability scores were valued at more than their bonus, but did ponder whether too complicated and maybe just looking at bonuses/penalties would be easier

 

[ichabod]

Okay, I couldn't wait until morning. If my late at night calculations in Excel are correct, then the variance of the ability bonus for one roll is 2.093555 (with an average of 0.873457). For six rolls, since the rolls are independent, we can just sum the variances, and the variance for the total bonus should be 12.56133, and the standard deviation would be 3.544196. So if you have +2 to +9 for your total bonus you are basically within one standard deviation of the norm.

But that's based on probability, which is not really the same as feat equivalency. So it would need to be more like what aco175 is saying. You could base it off the mean of +5 total bonus, but I would base it off who rolled best. But I would actually avoid something like this. I find first level feats to be awfully powerful.

 

[Casimir Liber]

In my game am using feats something like in Theros, so making them tied to deities. The idea is that (a) they help customise characters to deities and (b) help lvl 1 characters be less squishy. So setting mid-range at one feat. Let's say using flat 3d6. Where does one put the 'bar' at either end to add or subtract a feat. Three attribute bonus points variance seems a bit slim -or is it...?

 

[Oofta]

Point buy is pretty comparable to rolling if you limit the range of possible numbers from a roll. The limit on the high number kind of counterbalances the fact that you're never going to have a number below an 8. Of course that kind of goes out the window with people that don't follow official rules and allow re-rolls or set a lowest number acceptable.

I prefer point buy because I don't want one PC to have significantly higher numbers than another PC. But that's a separate issue.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I like the idea, but it needs a bit more granularity, so there isn't a case where someone with 66 points doesn't get a feat, but another at 65 points does get one.

So I'd put the bad feats no-one would normally pick there (Crafter, Athlete without the ASI), to bridge things over - you get something, but it's likely not something anyone would envy you for (however, this introduces extra judgement calls, like the new Tavern Brawler is terrible but not for Monks for whom it instead is a feat tax).

Comparing to the highest-roller in the player party runs into issues if other characters join later. I think it's easiest to just have one static table and accept that the campaign may start with everyone getting an extra something.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Honestly, my group enjoys rolling but we have created a system that gives better odds for at least a few high rolls. Roll 4d6 seven times, reroll ones and drop the lowest set. If someone wants a guaranteed 18, they must drop one of their stats to a 8 (or lower if they are feeling daring).

My group tends to prefer taking Feats to taking ASIs so it gives us greater freedom to do so, especially since we have a lot of homebrew feats. Also makes it easier to multi-classes as my group love to do that as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a fun idea, but setting thresholds is complicated because the total bonus is only a first-order statistic so to speak... meaning that it would be better to take also the actual distribution into account, as a character with a +2 in all scores is actually worse that another with a total smaller bonus and uneven distribution (such as two +4s and four 0s). That's because you can play according to your strengths and around your weaknesses.