D&D 5E Remember the "3d6 For Stats In Order" Thread? I'm doing it!

[DND_Reborn]

Ignoring that I am also working within a 6-15 range - which one could readily expand to 3-18 - I think draw without replacement has a lot to commend it. I prefer it to setting bounds for keepable characters... although right now I can't quite articulate why. Maybe because if the intent is to bound, I prefer a design that produces values falling within the bounds?

You know, I was playing around with the "card system" as I've come to call it, and decided that I like the idea, but for my table I added a bit to it.

After you have determined your ability scores, you can add 3 points to one score, 2 points to another, and 1 point to a third. There are no racial adjustments.

I like this because it allows the player to shore up a weakness, enhance a strength, or balance things out to help favor a class they might want. Also, by removing the racial adjustments, it isn't an overwhelming increase.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I gotta admit, I really like draw without replacement. It allows the DM to tune the stat range to whatever he/she wants for a campaign, and it ensures that there's some amount of parity across all the players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You know, I was playing around with the "card system" as I've come to call it, and decided that I like the idea, but for my table I added a bit to it.

After you have determined your ability scores, you can add 3 points to one score, 2 points to another, and 1 point to a third. There are no racial adjustments.

I like this because it allows the player to shore up a weakness, enhance a strength, or balance things out to help favor a class they might want. Also, by removing the racial adjustments, it isn't an overwhelming increase.

You could also:

1. Increase the point count of the deck (e.g. replace a 2 with a 6), then
2. Allow the player to switch any single card from one stat with any single card from another stat.

 

[clearstream]

You could also:

1. Increase the point count of the deck (e.g. replace a 2 with a 6), then
2. Allow the player to switch any single card from one stat with any single card from another stat.

What is your motive in wanting to allow the switch? I think one has to anticipate pulling a 5 or 6 from a dump stat onto a core stat, so it dilutes quite considerably the impact of roll in order. So I wondered why you want roll in order, and conversely why you want to then dilute it?

I agree with you that one could and maybe should tweak the deck. My choices were guided by wanting to pull the range slightly out to either side by having more high and low cards than middling cards. I modeled a version with a 6 and a 1, but this did not play well into my desire to avoid overshadowing because it creates a slim chance of a 16, which after race will foreseeably be 18 or +4, which might feel bad for the majority of players who will not be so lucky. It also pays off better for non-MAD characters: my flatter range was chosen to avoid that.

 

[Blue]

I think this works out for MAD classes better than both points-buy and 4d6k3, relative to other party members. The spikiest array is 15, 14, 12, 9, 7, 6, while the flattest is 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10. The most any character will have after race is +3 on their highest ability.

MAD classes typically want three good ability scores, while non-MAD want two. With points-buy, non-MAD have a clear advantage: they sink their points into those two. With 4d6k3, characters are likely to have one or two very strong scores, but far less likely to have three (unless they have godly stats, like the paladin in my previous campaign who overshadowed all bar one of the other party members).

The flatter stat-spread from draw-three-without-replacement supports MAD, relative to fellow party members.

I disagree with that it is relatively better for MAD. You have cases like the monk where they are a melee class with a restriction against armor but their Unarmored Defense. So MAD in their case is substituting in for mundane equipment, which all of the other classes still have access to. Their AC will be much lower relatively then the classes which still get access to medium or heavy armor, and shields.

And that just starting - the lower score also impact where to spend ASI and every MAD character will have more needs there. An archer rogue with a +1 DEX mod can focus just on DEX. A paladin with +1 attack ability and +1 CHR will find themselves likely forced to increase the attack ability to deal with monster AC calibration, and miss out on much of the later paladin abilities that trigger off CON. Same as @FrogReaver said for sword bards, who need DEX (for AC and attack) but only keep up as a front-line fighter through uses of bardic inspirations who's uses trigger off CHR. It's like if Battlemaster got variable amount of superiority dice based on an off-stat.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What is your motive in wanting to allow the switch? I think one has to anticipate pulling a 5 or 6 from a dump stat onto a core stat, so it dilutes quite considerably the impact of roll in order. So I wondered why you want roll in order, and conversely why you want to then dilute it?

I agree with you that one could and maybe should tweak the deck. My choices were guided by wanting to pull the range slightly out to either side by having more high and low cards than middling cards. I modeled a version with a 6 and a 1, but this did not play well into my desire to avoid overshadowing because it creates a slim chance of a 16, which after race will foreseeably be 18 or +4, which might feel bad for the majority of players who will not be so lucky. It also pays off better for non-MAD characters: my flatter range was chosen to avoid that.

When I was playing around with the Card method, I used more 3's and 4's than 2's and 5's (2:4, 3:5, 4:5, 5:4). But, the nice thing about it is you can tweak the deck (as mentioned). One variant I liked which gave slightly better scores (but nothing crazy) was 2:3, 3:5, 4:5, 5:5 (avg 11) or 2:3, 3:4, 4:4, 5:4, 6:3 (avg 12) if you want an 18 to be possible.

 

[iserith]

I think if I was doing the card method, it would have to be because there is a theme in the campaign of gambling or fortune telling or perhaps a game involving the deck of many things. It would somehow have to be reinforcing the flavor.

 

[clearstream]

And that just starting - the lower score also impact where to spend ASI and every MAD character will have more needs there. An archer rogue with a +1 DEX mod can focus just on DEX. A paladin with +1 attack ability and +1 CHR will find themselves likely forced to increase the attack ability to deal with monster AC calibration, and miss out on much of the later paladin abilities that trigger off CON.

It really depends so much on the exact ability scores and player choices. Most likely, that rogue ends up with +1 or +2 over the paladin. My previous campaign used 4d6k3 and overshadowing there was far more pronounced.

Which CON features are you referring to, for paladin? Do you mean Aura of the Guardian where your hit points would be salient? I couldn't find any others (from PHB and Xanathar's).

Same as @FrogReaver said for sword bards, who need DEX (for AC and attack) but only keep up as a front-line fighter through uses of bardic inspirations who's uses trigger off CHR. It's like if Battlemaster got variable amount of superiority dice based on an off-stat.

Looking at this objection, I feel like there could be another factor in play. My intent with allocate-as-rolled is that players won't have total fiat over class and race, or party balance. They must live with compromises and faults. Even so, it is up to each player what they choose: I think players with high-system mastery and an interest in optimising will not choose a sword bard unless they have the stats for it. Thus the situation one may fear in theory-crafting doesn't arise at the table. Say a player draws DEX 13 and CHA 14? They might choose to play a half-elf sword bard and do perfectly well with it. They won't be as strong as a points-buy character could have been, and that is by intent.

We need to separate the arguments properly. The intent is a weaker party, relative to MM creatures. So if a poster here dislikes that then on the one hand I have no criticism for their choice in that regard, but on the other hand that is not my choice. Therefore this is not something we should argue. The other argument is overshadowing. Even a +2 overshadow is mild compared to that I have seen under 4d6k3. More importantly, in play the raw ability scores are only a fraction of character leverage over the narrative: wise choices and clever use of the resources at their disposal are telling. Does the paladin use her spells and buffs wisely, while the rogue is intemperate?

 

[clearstream]

I think if I was doing the card method, it would have to be because there is a theme in the campaign of gambling or fortune telling or perhaps a game involving the deck of many things. It would somehow have to be reinforcing the flavor.

And yet dice, one of the staples of gambling, drives no such instinct?

 

[iserith]

And yet dice, one of the staples of gambling, drives no such instinct?

Being standard tools for this RPG, nah. When I make changes or additions to the game, I am very careful to make sure it supports the game experience I am going for. So while I am not averse to the card method, I can't see myself using it except in narrow circumstances related to reinforcing theme.