Ability Score Arrays

[Lanefan]

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.

Hmmm...interesting. I hadn't considered this.

Then again, at all levels I suppose it depends how often you want the Fighter to be connecting on a swing vs. a given AC. That said, from a 1e perspective (which is where all my numbers are coming from), to be +3 to hit you'd need 18.00 Strength!

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.

All quite true, so let's just set the timer and lay it at the feet of 3e design.

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.

Well, I can tell you - only because someone recently told me - that 5d6 drop 2 gives an overall stat average of 13.3, a full point higher than the array's 12.2. Given as we also allow what we call "DM's perogative", where something that's all 13 or less can be tossed and re-rolled (3e's DMG had something similar), and that racial adjustments in our 1e games tend toward the favourable, our overall average ends up closer to 14.0. Characters with a single 18 are not uncommon, but also not at all guaranteed; characters with more than one 18 are quite rare. But, I repeat, this is for 1e, where bonuses for most things don't kick in until 15 or higher (and penalties at 6 or lower). Were I to run 3e or 4e I'd go for something lower (probably 4d6 drop 1) mainly because bonuses start at a lower point. Either that, or I'd expand the +0 range to 8-13 and reduce all other bonuses/penalties by 1 to suit.

Lanefan

 

[Phlebas]

........ 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.

Always been my biggest concern with arrays is that you get optimal rather than interesting arrays

back in 2ed days i had a house rule that you could raise your highest stat by lowering your lowest - but i expected proper RP of a 'dump' stat. Most fun example was a low int paladin who was played as a dizzy blonde with a shopping addiction. didn't affect her ability to hit things, but gave a lot of humour to the game

but when you have basic arrays with nothing interesting about them then you lose a lot of the interesting starting points for your characters personality

IMHO, YMMV

 

[moritheil]

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. )

I believe it's all of the above.

People like playing characters with more power. It's been said that society is moving increasingly towards instant gratification, and in light of that I think making people wait less to do cool things is an intelligent game design decision.

 

[Aus_Snow]

When I tried standard 3e point buy, briefly, I found 30-33 points to be about right. Still, that was in a low magic item count, lower magic, harsher (I guess) than default environment.

As far as arrays go, I would always prefer at least say, an 8 in there. A bit of suffering's good for the soul, or something. But I also like having the opportunity to place an 18 somewhere if that's what a given character should have. So, something sliding down from 18 to 8 or lower. Hm, I'll see if I can come up with one I'd use, if I ever used an array (which I wouldn't.)

 

[Mark]

It's been said that society is moving increasingly towards instant gratification, (. . .)

Not in praise, it hasn't, as far as I know.

 

[ekb]

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.

Or, you could use randomized stats as a way of showing how people can rise over challenges...

Come to my house to play D&D and I'll hand you 5d6 (drop 2 lowest)... But you can only roll after you've decided class and race based on the rest of the party and the setting information. ANd we take those puppies IN ORDER. Amazing how having a 11Str, 17 Int, 13 Dex, 8 Con, 12 Wis, 11 Cha will make you a very strategic Warrior rather than a walking meat wall...

Another idea that's seeming pretty interesting to me these days: Reign has the option of having a totally random CharGen based around a single roll of a ridiculously huge pool of d10s. The character balance comes from the fact that everyone has the exact same size of dice pool and that setting X dice aside to get Y pile of Fun means that you have P-X dice to get more Fun. Then you have another pool that creates the common assets and quirks of the party... I look forward to someone adapting the system to SRD-flavored D&D.

Now, what other house rule hacks develop for 4e...

 

[Aus_Snow]

Come to my house to play D&D and I'll hand you 5d6 (drop 2 lowest)... But you can only roll after you've decided class and race based on the rest of the party and the setting information. ANd we take those puppies IN ORDER. Amazing how having a 11Str, 17 Int, 13 Dex, 8 Con, 12 Wis, 11 Cha will make you a very strategic Warrior rather than a walking meat wall...

So you're a Wizard, and your Int is 9. Yeah, and? Suck it up and deal, playah!



Amazing how having a Wizard who can't cast anything will make you seek another group, pronto.

 

[ekb]

So you're a Wizard, and your Int is 9. Yeah, and? Suck it up and deal, playah! Amazing how having a Wizard who can't cast anything will make you seek another group, pronto.

"can't cast anything"? We're doing just the 3 archetype classes (Warrior - Expert - Adept), so Wis is what counts here and Int only adds bonus spells. We do have a mulligan rule - if you're at a negative modifier for your class' key stat, we roll everything again, limit one such do-over. <Stat> 9 is a -1 modifier, so if someone got that as the key stat, we'd roll everything again.

I'm not a complete bastard - just mostly a bastard...

 

[Aus_Snow]

We do have a mulligan rule - if you're at a negative modifier for your class' key stat, we roll everything again, limit one such do-over.

What happens if you roll under the minimum again? Say, Wis 9 or lower both times, choosing Adept both times?

 

[taliesin15]

On the one hand, I like the old D&D paradigm of rolling up your scores with 3d6--the random element is interesting, one might end up with a very strong but clumsy fighter, or a mage with a very low charisma.

However, in my recent campaigns, I've simply allowed a very generous system: all ability scores are at least 10, then from there you get 36 points to add on as you like. No score can exceed 20 at 1st level, nor be less than 10.

FWIW, I also give 1st level characters a level of Commoner, more for versimilitude sake, and I select the skills based on the class background the players want, so they usually start off with a few skill points of Ride, Swim, Farmer/Rancher, Knowledge: Local, and the like.