D&D 5E The Philosophy Behind Randomized and Standardized Ability Scores

[Helpful NPC Thom]

3d6 down the line, no rerolls, human fighter only, final destination.

 

[reelo]

Interesting idea. How often is such a roll given? (not familiar with The Black Hack at all)

You get ONE try for each stat at each levelup (which I personally find excessive) If it's your class' main stat, you can try twice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I like how The Black Hack does it: you roll 1d20 and if the result is ABOVE your current stat, it goes up by 1 point. That way it gets harder the higher your stat already is.

I'd like to hear more about this, same as Lanefan

Edit: Guess I should have refreshed the page first.

But, actually, that makes sense to me considering the risk reward and that you only get to increase them by 1 pt

 

[Lanefan]

You get ONE try for each stat at each levelup (which I personally find excessive) If it's your class' main stat, you can try twice.

Which means someone starting with a standard-ish run of stats - say, 15-14-13-12-10-8 - has a pretty good chance of seeing two of those go up at level 2 and (maybe not the same) two go up at level 3; after which the odds very much favour one stat going up each level for quite a while.

I agree, that's excessive - unless you're playing a level-capped variant similar to the E6 version of 3e, in which case I could live with it.

 

[tetrasodium]

You get ONE try for each stat at each levelup (which I personally find excessive) If it's your class' main stat, you can try twice.

What do they begin at after character creation/before the first roll? Do they roll at level 1 or not till 2?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which means someone starting with a standard-ish run of stats - say, 15-14-13-12-10-8 - has a pretty good chance of seeing two of those go up at level 2 and (maybe not the same) two go up at level 3; after which the odds very much favour one stat going up each level for quite a while.

I agree, that's excessive - unless you're playing a level-capped variant similar to the E6 version of 3e, in which case I could live with it.

True, but if you could only choose one per level, you'd go with the fifteen. And then you'd have a 75% chance of nothing happening, meaning it could be multiple levels until you saw any growth. So, they have to have it be for every stat just on that, and if you assume an average game of ten levels, you probably need every level to get that fifteen to go up two or three times.

 

[reelo]

What do they begin at after character creation/before the first roll? Do they roll at level 1 or not till 2?

In "TBH" at character creation, you roll 3d6 in order. If you roll 14+ for one stat, the next stat will automatically be a 7. Once you have 6 stats, you can swap 2 stats to your liking.
First time you roll for ASI is when you reach lvl 2.

 

[Lanefan]

True, but if you could only choose one per level, you'd go with the fifteen. And then you'd have a 75% chance of nothing happening, meaning it could be multiple levels until you saw any growth. So, they have to have it be for every stat just on that, and if you assume an average game of ten levels, you probably need every level to get that fifteen to go up two or three times.

True.

I suppose the bigger question* is, on average how many total stat points, if any, should a character expect to gain** over 5 levels, or 10, or 20? Then once that one's answered the next is should those gains be at predictable points (e.g. every x levels), or random, or a combination of both? After that we can ask should the gains be in stats of the player's choice, or forced by class (i.e. gains must be in your prime stat), or randomized, or some combination?

Personally, I'm not sold on the need for much stat gain at all in 5e, largely because as far as I can tell there's no means of permanently losing stat points in this edition thus any cancel-out-the-losses rationale evaporates. I could see over 20 levels a gain of maybe 2-5 points in your prime stat plus the same range again in total across randomized other stats, with the gains in all cases coming unpredictably. One way of doing this might be to take that roll-over-the-stat method propsed upthread and modify it such that if you miss at a level your roll at next level is at +5, cumulative each level until you hit; but once you hit you don't get to roll for that stat on the level following such that a stat cannot advance on two level-ups in a row. (so if the stat is 15 and you roll 13 (miss) then next level you roll 6 [+5] (miss) then next level you roll 12 [+10] (hit, stat advances) then next level there's no roll, after which you start the process again by rolling straight-up against 16)

* - and one can argue this question can be applied in some form to any edition, not just 5e; and the answer would probably be different for each.
** - via pure game mechanics, ignoring wish effects or other in-game means of permanently boosting a stat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

True.

I suppose the bigger question* is, on average how many total stat points, if any, should a character expect to gain** over 5 levels, or 10, or 20? Then once that one's answered the next is should those gains be at predictable points (e.g. every x levels), or random, or a combination of both? After that we can ask should the gains be in stats of the player's choice, or forced by class (i.e. gains must be in your prime stat), or randomized, or some combination?

Personally, I'm not sold on the need for much stat gain at all in 5e, largely because as far as I can tell there's no means of permanently losing stat points in this edition thus any cancel-out-the-losses rationale evaporates. I could see over 20 levels a gain of maybe 2-5 points in your prime stat plus the same range again in total across randomized other stats, with the gains in all cases coming unpredictably. One way of doing this might be to take that roll-over-the-stat method propsed upthread and modify it such that if you miss at a level your roll at next level is at +5, cumulative each level until you hit; but once you hit you don't get to roll for that stat on the level following such that a stat cannot advance on two level-ups in a row. (so if the stat is 15 and you roll 13 (miss) then next level you roll 6 [+5] (miss) then next level you roll 12 [+10] (hit, stat advances) then next level there's no roll, after which you start the process again by rolling straight-up against 16)

* - and one can argue this question can be applied in some form to any edition, not just 5e; and the answer would probably be different for each.
** - via pure game mechanics, ignoring wish effects or other in-game means of permanently boosting a stat.

One aspect I'm thinking about is linear growth and training. With the way that the system is designed, with 5e, you end up in a quite odd situation.

Let's say that you ended up with the Standard array and applied racial bonuses. So 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8. Now, at level two you roll 6d20 and what are the likely results? It is highly likely that the two 16's remain the same, if the 12, 10 or 8 get a +1 it doesn't change anything mechanically, and so the only potential increase is the 13 to a 14.

Now, next level you might see a bit of a cascade, you might see those bottom three numbers go up all at once. But the core of your character's power is still those two 16's, and they are still unlikely to have changed. It may take you until level 5 or 6 to get those to raise up to a 17. Only hitting an 18 around level 10.

So, what seems likely is that your lower stats, which usually are ignored in DnD, start mellowing out into that +1, +2 territory as you start reaching the end of the typical campaign, while you high stats remain largely unchanged (barring luck). This gives a narrative of training to overcome your weaknesses, and combatting the issues with MAD classes who generally struggle with needing a lot of stats. It would also actually slow down the changes to the ceiling of power, because getting to an 18 wouldn't be nearly guaranteed by level 4. Meanwhile, I don't think it would feel... bad, to not be reaching those heights, because your breadth is increasing.


The issue I can see is whether or not you are okay with the lower stats getting up to the +2 range pretty regularly in every campaign. But for me, that seems perfectly reasonable.