A Question of Power

[Grydan]

I think you'd have to forbid multiclassing in order to prevent the near-universal result of characters selecting a different class at second level, one more suited to their actual abilities. (Of course, given that the original proposal suggested the players were new and had no rulebooks, multiclassing would be effectively nonexistant due to player ignorance of the possibility … though even were you to find players that ignorant of the concept, I'd still think a clever one would ask if it was possible for his character to try his hand at something else.)

 

[Dandu]

Taking your point about classes like the sorcerer first, yes, my proposal is particularly weak when it comes to inherent abilities. Perhaps such classes wouldn't be appropriate at all in a campaign like this.

However, it does lead to some other interesting possibilities. The student of wizardry spends his first few levels learning to read magic or the church that just doesn't find promising initiates all that often (and those who are would be perceived in a very different light to similar characters in the default demographic). Prodigies would make formidable opponents and those in particular that were encountered at low level would present a great challenge. If not stopped early, they might very well become unstoppable. But it's a scenario in which heroes are truly those who win against the odds.

It would be a world in which there would be less magic and more risk, that's for sure. Some might call it grim and gritty. I'm just curious as to the kinds of encounters and problem solving it might lead to.

I imagine that if I had low scores and had to clear a cave of orcs, I'd buy a few barrels of alchemist's fire and oil.

 

[delericho]

Tricky question. I allow a choice: use 4d6-drop-lowest (so, default), or 28-point buy (so, higher), or an array of 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (so, higher).

I guess I'll vote higher than default.

 

[Ranes]

I imagine that if I had low scores and had to clear a cave of orcs, I'd buy a few barrels of alchemist's fire and oil.

I'd do that if I had high scores.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Tricky question. I allow a choice: use 4d6-drop-lowest (so, default), or 28-point buy (so, higher), or an array of 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (so, higher).

If I understand correctly, that means you're giving players a choice of being guaranteed something slightly better than the default, or taking a random jump that may lead to greatness but will average out at the default. Sounds like higher to me.

 

[delericho]

If I understand correctly, that means you're giving players a choice of being guaranteed something slightly better than the default, or taking a random jump that may lead to greatness but will average out at the default. Sounds like higher to me.

Not quite. There was some statistical analysis done a while back that showed that 4d6-drop-lowest would actually average out equivalent to about 30.5 point buy. The downside being that you don't get to fully optimise the placement of those points (you're likely to get more 12's than you'd really like, for example). What this means, though, is that the 25-point buy is actually lower power than the default option from the PHB.

And the array I offer is equivalent to a 29 point buy, but again without the full control that comes from just taking the numbers - no option to get an 18 or assign a second 8, or whatever.

So, the choice is between an option that is likely to give more raw power but least control, an option that gives less raw power but more control, and an option between the two positions. But they're all pretty much equal.

(Incidentally, in my just-started campaign, all three players elected to go for the array. I think that was purely due to simplicity, though.)

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'd go for higher. Simply put, some classes do need the larger ability scores to actually perform as expected while ones that don't need several decent scores such as casters aren't hugely affected by higher stats in most cases.