Ability Score Arrays

[Mark]

(I believe that since this topic spans over a couple of editions, it should be posted in the General forum.)


I noted, IIRC from the quick glance I had at Games Plus yesterday evening, in the 4E PH that the "Standard" array of ability scores is meant to be 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. This would represent a rise of five points, to 30 from 25 (according to the 3.5E DMG point buy system, if I have my math right), from the "Elite" array from the DMG in 3.5E of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

 

[Buttercup]

Are you asking what we think about that? Or what we think about ability scores in general? Or what we think about arrays, standard, elite or other? (You know I'd be happy to give you my opinion on all of these, but I'd like to know which you want first. )

 

[blargney the second]

That'd make a decent ability array for PCs. Skip point buy and rolling - everybody starts from the same place.

 

[Buttercup]

That'd make a decent ability array for PCs. Skip point buy and rolling - everybody starts from the same place.

When I ask players to start with an array, that's the one I've always used. I tend to run games in which magic items are scarce, so I like to compensate by letting the players have beefy stats.

 

[Mark]

I did note, too, that the modifier progression was the same as in 3.X.

Are you asking what we think about that? Or what we think about ability scores in general? Or what we think about arrays, standard, elite or other? (You know I'd be happy to give you my opinion on all of these, but I'd like to know which you want first. )

Make of it what you will. It was just a notable difference that I thought would be a good basis for general discussion. Worth mentioning, perhaps, that in the 3.5E DMG the point buy progressions were -

Low-powered campaign = 15 pts
Challenging campaign = 22 pts
Tougher campaign = 28 pts
High-powered campaign = 32 pts

And the Ability score point costs were -

9 = 1 pt
10 = 2 pt
11 = 3 pt
12 = 4 pt
13 = 5 pt
14 = 6 pt
15 = 8 pt
16 = 10 pt
17 = 13 pt
18 = 16 pt

So they are handy for discussion reference.

 

[Simm]

Add to marks list:
Standard: 25pts

15 14 13 12 10 8 is a 25pt buy
16 14 13 12 11 10 is 30pt buy

I usually prefer rolling but when I did use point but I actually used 30 point buy as my standard rather than 28 or 32. So I'm perfectly fine with this as the standard array or buy.

 

[Buttercup]

Well, I should admit upfront that I haven't been paying real close attention to 4E, because the marketing strategy of trashing 3E to make people want the new stuff just didn't sit well with me.

I don't find the array in question to be problematic in and of itself. I like the players to have characters who are much better than the average Joe, or Mark or Buttercup. In fact, as I suggested upthread, I'd far rather they have high ability scores to fuel their prowess than have to rely on a Holy Keen Shocking Ethereal Scimitar +4.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I should admit upfront that I haven't been paying real close attention to 4E, because the marketing strategy of trashing 3E to make people want the new stuff just didn't sit well with me.

I don't find the array in question to be problematic in and of itself. I like the players to have characters who are much better than the average Joe, or Mark or Buttercup. In fact, as I suggested upthread, I'd far rather they have high ability scores to fuel their prowess than have to rely on a Holy Keen Shocking Ethereal Scimitar +4.

From some research I've been doing using stats from lots of our dice-rolled 1e characters, I can say this much: initial stats don't make very much difference to the expected career length of the character, provided it survives the first adventure it is in. That said, the array presented here is quite low by our standards; the stat average is only 12.2 where our long-term average by rolling (5d6, drop 2 lowest, adjust for race) is about 14.1. Only 4 characters out of the 160 or so I checked had a starting average lower than this.

That said, starting with low-ish stats in 3e (and even more so in 4e) is mitigated by the fact that even if you never find any stat-boosting items some of your stats will go up with level no matter what you do.

In 3e, a 1-21 character will get by function of level a total of 5 stat points to chuck around as desired (at 1 per 4 levels). That's not much, and is (I think) based on the percentile increments given to 1e Cavaliers...1 stat advancing per 4 or 5 levels is mathematically about right for that system.

In 4e, it looks like 2 points per 4 levels plus 6 points (one per stat) at each "tier" level so a 1-21 (for comparison) will get 2 points on each stat *plus* another 10 points to throw around on 2 different stats at a time...so your guy that starts out at 16-14-13-12-10-8 will be, by 21st level, 18-16-15-14-12-10 with 10 more points, no more than 5 of which can be in one stat, assigned as desired; giving a stat average of 16.8 no matter how they are assigned. I didn't check our lot's high-level averages, but I'm safe in saying 16.8 would be way high if attained at all.

This is how 4e is able to do away with all the stat-boosting magic items everyone had, by building stat-creep in as an intrinsic feature of the character.

My question is, why does this amount of stat-creep need to be present at all?

Lanefan

 

[Buttercup]

My question is, why does this amount of stat-creep need to be present at all?
Lanefan

I suppose we'll have to read the books to find out why the designers think it has to be present.

Me? I think E6 is looking more attractive by the day.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

My question is, why does this amount of stat-creep need to be present at all?

I believe that the traditional explanation is to keep stat bonuses important in the overall context. Take attack rolls as an example. A fighter at 1st level is getting roughly half or 60% of the to-hit bonus from strength-- a +5 melee attack might be +1 BAB, +1 Weapon Focus, and +3 Str. Without any stat increases, at 20th level a 3e fighter would have a to-hit bonus of +30 or so-- +20 BAB, +2 or so from Weapon Focus, +5 from a magic weapon, and +3 from Str. In other words, the Str bonus just doesn't really matter much. With standard 3e scaling, the Strength bonus might be more like +8 or +9 (4 or 5 points of stat bumps, plus a strength increasing widget). Not the 50% at first level, but it still matters. A similar calculation applies to damage, where you're comparing the modifier to all of the various damage enhancing bonuses. Similar analyses apply to most of the other stats, with the added factor for spellcasters that the 3e default is really that spellcasters get 2 spells per day of their highest level when they first qualify for it (i.e. a 5th level wizard gets 2 third level spells, because of the Int bonus). That requires scaling the wizard's Int modifier. (Yes, there are probably some levels where most wizards don't get the extra spell, but still, the basic point holds true.) Con of course is broken with this sorta scaling, but that's sorta okay, because it lets you build the tank types of character that can be hard to make effective in 3e.

Back to the original topic, I don't really like the stat inflation of the starting array. First, I would prefer a system where 4d6 drop 1 is still roughly competitive, so that DMs can reasonably give that as a choice. I suppose you can switch to 5d6 drop 2 or something, but then you start seeing many more 18s and such. Also, Piratecat has convinced me of the value of having a single low stat-- it makes a character more interesting. Both of my current most active PCs have a low stat (in one case an 8, in the other a 5), and it shapes their behavior in fun and interesting ways. Having the array set up so that characters are no worse than average in anything and much better in their good areas stomps on that a little, and that makes me sad.