D&D 5E Minimum ability scores for a PC

[Crothian]

That seems to me to be an oversimplified and kind of judgemental way of putting it.

I see people not you talking about if is fun for them. If that's what is important for them then great but not everyone is that way. I'm offering a different view point.

And mine doesn't? As if I was not also playing 1e in the 80s?

Your perspective comes from *you*, not from the 80s, or decades.

It comes from me an my experience which includes the 80's a decades of gaming. In that experience I have played in games that are very much like what the discussion is about of playing characters of different power levels in the same group. I feel that experience is important to the conversation at hand.

 

[Redthistle]

The standard (15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 08) is fair enough to me. You'll probably get a +3 modifier in your primary stat after racial adjustments, so you'll get an overall balanced adventurer. I allow players to roll, though, but if they roll they have to keep whatever they get. We got some losers this way, but it's not really gambling when you're either winning or breaking even.

I agree with Giltonio Santos; the standard array is the standard for a reason.

Even a character without a racial boost to a class's primary ability stat will be able to boost that stat from 15 to 16 or 17 at 4th level. As long as a player is not obsessed with having a beginning PC who's the best at their niche and likes the challenge of being considered a bit of an underdog against some opponents (it makes a win so much more satisfying), not having a +3 modifier at 1st-level is not a problem.

As to MasterTrancer's question, though, about what minimum scores might be optimal, I would not want a PC to start the game with any one ability lower than a 6 (-2 modifier). The net sum of the modifiers over the six abilities are something I would prefer to not go below +5, with the best ability having at least a +2.

 

[MostlyDm]

One decent stat is usually enough to make an interesting character.

I actually just signed up this moment because reading through discussions of array vs. rolling and nobody has mentioned my favorite method.

Array feels to sterile to me, and too predictable. I like a bit of randomness, to encourage people to expand their comfort zones.

But I'm sympathetic to the view that rolling can create significant imbalances. So, for quite a few years now, my solution has been to have everyone roll up a set, and then everyone picks the set they like from within the confines of any of the sets.

Voilà! Balance restored.

Most of the time this just results in everyone getting an array that was randomly determined at the table. Sometimes it's a crappy array. Sometimes it's nuts.

Occasionally, there are multiple valid arrays to choose from. These are the best times. Maybe Brian's set had two 16s and no bad stats. But Geoff's set includes an 18 and a 6. Depending on the preferences of the player one may be valued over another... But nobody gets saddled with a set so much worse than their peers that they have a distinct long term disability.

I can't be the only one that does this, right? And if I was, well, maybe now I won't be!

 

[the Jester]

I let a player reroll if his stats are boring (nothing too low or too high) or if the initial set doesn't have at least one decent number- somewhere around a 14.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I let a player reroll if his stats are boring (nothing too low or too high) or if the initial set doesn't have at least one decent number- somewhere around a 14.

My worst fear about rolling is that I'll get something boring. I would much rather be stuck with (3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15) than (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 17).

 

[the Jester]

My worst fear about rolling is that I'll get something boring. I would much rather be stuck with (3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15) than (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 17).

I don't consider a 17 boring- change that to a 14, and you've got what I mean.

 

[Unwise]

So, your argument is, "I did it, so everyone else can and should be able to do the same thing, and have the same fun"?

I, personally, think it is great that folks like lots of different things. I mean, really, if we all liked the same things, there'd be a world haggis shortage. In RPGs, it means having some consideration for folks who don't play exactly like ourselves, who want and get different things out of play - not necessarily mutually incompatible things, but some leeway and flexibility.

<<If must say, I find it funny that many people who love rolling, always argue that their should be no penalty for poor rolls =D >>

Well, no. Why should a player pay a penalty for the whole campaign when they have bad dice luck at the moment of character creation? A penalty is something imposed on you for doing something wrong - like cheating. Pay a penalty for being arrogant, or dumb in play? Sure. You reap what you sow. But for sheer bad luck? Not so much.

Why should a player have a bonus for the whole campaign when they have good dice luck at the moment of character creation? A bonus is something given to you for doing something cool - like driving the plot forward. Getting a bonus for being awesome, or smart in play? Sure. You reap what you sow. But for sheer good luck? Not so much

I have no strong feelings on the topic, but complaining about bad rolls being a penalty always rings hollow to me, without also seeing great stats in a similar light. Rolling without consequence feels a little like flipping a two headed coin to me. I always feel like I'm cheating a bit.

I'm happy to be blatant about it though, to say that everybody gets great stats that are semi-randomized within the confines of awesomeness, I have done that before and it worked well. I have also run games where if anybody had terribly low stats, then they could choose to be crippled or young. Both of which were fixable with time and effort. So the guy with 5 Int eventually found a mad scientist that could cure his acquired brain injury and bring his Int back up to 10. The halfling with strength 5 eventually grew older as she leveled and got it up to 8.

 

[Shiroiken]

So... consequences are automatically punishments? Really?

Risk means that yes, you will be punished if you roll badly.

Your words.

Now I understand your confusion. Consequences are the result of the action taken, which can be both good and bad. If you want to risk rolling for a chance at better than Array, you should have to accept the consequences (high or low). No one complains when they risk and roll well, but far too often people whine when they roll poorly (even though they choose to take the risk in the first place).

And I still find that surprising.

Why? Because I actually have pride in myself as a DM and as a Player, and expect the same from those I game with?

 

[Laeknir]

I hesitate to share this, because some people have freaked out when we tell them how we do stats. But it's worked for us for years.

We let people create their character concept, and allow them to choose stats that they think are appropriate. No rolling of dice, we just let players assign whatever values they think are appropriate for the PC they've created.

Interestingly, no one in our groups has tried to take advantage of this. It's very rare to see anything below 10, but it's also very rare to see an 18. We tell them to think very seriously about what their scores should be, based on their concept, and they're fair.

I wouldn't try this with a completely random group at a gaming store, or with young kids, but we get ability scores that are generally in the same vein as "roll 5d6, choose the three highest" and in many cases 4d6 choose 3.

 

[aramis erak]

I hesitate to share this, because some people have freaked out when we tell them how we do stats. But it's worked for us for years.

We let people create their character concept, and allow them to choose stats that they think are appropriate. No rolling of dice, we just let players assign whatever values they think are appropriate for the PC they've created.

Interestingly, no one in our groups has tried to take advantage of this. It's very rare to see anything below 10, but it's also very rare to see an 18. We tell them to think very seriously about what their scores should be, based on their concept, and they're fair.

I wouldn't try this with a completely random group at a gaming store, or with young kids, but we get ability scores that are generally in the same vein as "roll 5d6, choose the three highest" and in many cases 4d6 choose 3.

That explains some of your more off the wall comments in other places.

In all seriousness, if that works for you, fine. But it also makes many of your mechanical observations suspect.