rgoodbb
Adventurer
Honestly, not much. Just idle wondering out loud really. There have been some interesting answers. Thanks everyone for your thoughts/knowledge.
Does 1d12+5 for ability scores work OK?
Honestly, not much. Just idle wondering out loud really. There have been some interesting answers. Thanks everyone for your thoughts/knowledge.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
No base stat in 5e should be higher than 15.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
2d4+7 then.
aco175
Legend
I tend to use the standard array to assign them, it works, but nobody starts off super if that is your idea. I have also thought about a system of bonuses where you have +10 to assign to stats. If you want the 18 strength then you have used up 4 of the 10. I never went far with it since I felt many people would just have 18,18,16,10,10,10 for stats. Even worse if I let them gain more by assigning lower scores than 10.
In general, anything that produces scores within the 3-18 range will work. If you think about it, even "Everyone gets all 18s!" will work. It just produces a particular kind of game.
Once you introduce a random element, the real question is on what scale you will see the impacts of the particular choice. In a group of 5 PCs, you get a total of 30 stats. That's not a lot to see the impact of a distribution, unless that distribution is really strongly skewed. For something between flat (as suggested in the OP) and the fairly gentle bell of 3d6 or 4d6-drop-lowest, in any given party you'll see some with good stats, and some with bad. f you rolled two such parties, you'd probably be hard pressed to tell which party came from which distribution. Due to the small sample size, a single party is not the right scale to see the impact of the distribution.
The choice of distribution is better seen on the much larger scale - across many parties, many tables, many groups, when you are talking about many tens, hundreds or thousands of characters made using the system. The distribution doesn't really impact how *your* game will go, but it does impact how the game plays, in general.
If you want to control how your own game plays, don't use random stat generation - use an array, or a point-buy scheme where you can control the per-point costs and boundaries.
Once you introduce a random element, the real question is on what scale you will see the impacts of the particular choice. In a group of 5 PCs, you get a total of 30 stats. That's not a lot to see the impact of a distribution, unless that distribution is really strongly skewed. For something between flat (as suggested in the OP) and the fairly gentle bell of 3d6 or 4d6-drop-lowest, in any given party you'll see some with good stats, and some with bad. f you rolled two such parties, you'd probably be hard pressed to tell which party came from which distribution. Due to the small sample size, a single party is not the right scale to see the impact of the distribution.
The choice of distribution is better seen on the much larger scale - across many parties, many tables, many groups, when you are talking about many tens, hundreds or thousands of characters made using the system. The distribution doesn't really impact how *your* game will go, but it does impact how the game plays, in general.
If you want to control how your own game plays, don't use random stat generation - use an array, or a point-buy scheme where you can control the per-point costs and boundaries.
There’d be as many superstrong *player characters*, not people in general. The PCs are the 4-5 non-typical people in the world. Doesn’t matter what their scores are; it doesn’t affect the rest of the world.
Satyrn
First Post
I like that one. It's intriguing that a player could wind up with his main stat lower than his best one. (I mean, that's always been a possibility but this method takes the choice away.)
I'd even be a little "meaner" than what you wrote and start the main stat at 15 (before racial addons). I put meaner in scare quotes, because my table's been using only the standard array for the last couple years and we've found the characters still feel strong and capable with a 15 as the highest starting stat. And on ge DM's side, too, everything runs smoother, too.
If you weren't looking for a random generation system, I'd totally be stumping for standard array (not point buy). Instead, I really like your idea I quoted.
Mercule
Adventurer
I've used point buy since 3E. Why? I hate the swing factor. Not for PCs, in general -- I can adapt to any group power curve. It's because it almost always results in one player having super high stats, with another having super low stats. Sure, you can set lower bounds and eyeball rerolls, but what's the right level of "cheat"? Also, if the PCs have a possibility of coming up 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, shouldn't there also be a consummate risk? Granted, being simply "average" when another PC has the above stats is punishment enough. It's even worse when you have to play the "standard array" powered character while Superman came on a reroll after that player got a first roll bad enough to be considered unplayable, especially if the chump was about the same number of bonuses below your standard character as your standard character is below the new one.
I do like some level of randomness, though, and I'm not so keen on the the natural min-maxing that comes from point buy (all even stats?). So, I kinda like the card suggestion from ad_hoc. I've also considered using four Fate dice centered around a 12, giving a pretty tight bell curve with bounds of 8 and 16, but that would probably be too tight.
I do like some level of randomness, though, and I'm not so keen on the the natural min-maxing that comes from point buy (all even stats?). So, I kinda like the card suggestion from ad_hoc. I've also considered using four Fate dice centered around a 12, giving a pretty tight bell curve with bounds of 8 and 16, but that would probably be too tight.
Similar Threads
