D&D 5E (2014) Ability Score Point Cost − what does a 16 cost?

[Yaarel]

There seems to be no way around it. Using the statistics of the weighted 4d6 Drop to determine point cost arrays, creates high primary ability arrays that are noticeably better than the standard array.

 

[Yaarel]

For players who want to roll randomly, here is a list of (almost) 100 arrays.

Roll d100.

Random − and balanced.

[FONT=Courier New][B]27-Point Array      •   d100[/B]
13 13 13 12 12 12   •    1
13 13 13 13 12 11   •    2
13 13 13 13 13 10   •    3
14 12 12 12 12 12   •    4
14 13 12 12 12 11   •    5
14 13 13 12 11 11   •    6
14 13 13 12 12 10   •    7
14 13 13 13 11 10   •    8
14 13 13 13 12  9   •    9
14 13 13 13 13  8   •   10
14 14 12 11 11 11   •   11
14 14 12 12 11 10   •   12
14 14 12 12 12  9   •   13
14 14 13 11 11 10   •   14
14 14 13 12 10 10   •   15
14 14 13 12 11  9   •   16
14 14 13 12 12  8   •   17
14 14 13 13 10  9   •   18
14 14 13 13 11  8   •   19
14 14 14 10 10 10   •   20
14 14 14 11 10  9   •   21
14 14 14 11 11  8   •   22
14 14 14 12  9  9   •   23
14 14 14 12 10  8   •   24
14 14 14 13  9  8   •   25
15 12 12 12 11 11   •   26
15 12 12 12 12 10   •   27
15 13 12 11 11 11   •   28
15 13 12 12 11 10   •   29
15 13 12 12 12  9   •   30
15 13 13 11 11 10   •   31
15 13 13 12 10 10   •   32
15 13 13 12 11  9   •   33
15 13 13 12 12  8   •   34
15 13 13 13 10  9   •   35
15 13 13 13 11  8   •   36
15 14 11 11 11 10   •   37
15 14 12 11 10 10   •   38
15 14 12 11 11  9   •   39
15 14 12 12 10  9   •   40
15 14 12 12 11  8   •   41
15 14 13 10 10 10   •   42
15 14 13 11 10  9   •   43
15 14 13 11 11  8   •   44
15 14 13 12  9  9   •   45
15 14 13 12 10  8   •   46
15 14 13 13  9  8   •   47
15 14 14 10  9  9   •   48
15 14 14 10 10  8   •   49
15 14 14 11  9  8   •   50
15 14 14 12  8  8   •   51
15 15 11 10 10 10   •   52
15 15 11 11 10  9   •   53
15 15 11 11 11  8   •   54
15 15 12 10 10  9   •   55
15 15 12 11  9  9   •   56
15 15 12 11 10  8   •   57
15 15 12 12  9  8   •   58
15 15 13 10  9  9   •   59
15 15 13 10 10  8   •   60
15 15 13 11  9  8   •   61
15 15 13 12  8  8   •   62
15 15 14  9  9  8   •   63
15 15 14 10  8  8   •   64
15 15 15  8  8  8   •   65
16 12 12 11 11 11   •   66
16 12 12 12 11 10   •   67
16 12 12 12 12  9   •   68
16 13 10 10 10 10   •   69
16 13 11 10 10  9   •   70
16 13 11 11  9  9   •   71
16 13 11 11 10  8   •   72
16 13 12 10  9  9   •   73
16 13 12 10 10  8   •   74
16 13 12 11  9  8   •   75
16 13 12 12  8  8   •   76
16 13 13  9  9  9   •   77
16 13 13 10  9  8   •   78
16 13 13 11  8  8   •   79
16 14 10 10  9  9   •   80
16 14 10 10 10  8   •   81
16 14 11 10  9  8   •   82
16 14 11 11  8  8   •   83
16 14 12  9  9  8   •   84
16 14 12 10  8  8   •   85
16 14 13  9  8  8   •   86
16 15  9  9  9  9   •   87
16 15 10  9  9  8   •   88
16 15 10 10  8  8   •   89
16 15 11  9  8  8   •   90
16 15 12  8  8  8   •   91
17  9  9  9  9  8   •   92
17 10  9  9  8  8   •   93
17 10 10  8  8  8   •   94
17 11  9  8  8  8   •   95
17 12  8  8  8  8   •   96
Roll Again          •   97-00

[/FONT]

 

[ro]

Here is my suggestion:

18: 19 points
17: 15 points
16: 12 points
15: 9 points
14: 7 points
13: 5 points
12: 4 points
11: 3 points
10: 2 points
9: 1 point
8: 0 points
7: -2 points
6: -4 points
5: -7 points
4: -10 points
3: -14 points

This retains the point costs from the PHB.
Costs are centered around 10s and 11s.
A 10 costs 2, and an 11 costs 3.
It follows one simple rule:

As you go up or down, add the ability modifier of the new score.[/indent]

For example:
14 costs previous score (13=5) plus 14's ability modifier (+2) = 7.
8 costs previous score (9=1) plus 8's ability modifier (-1) = 0.

If you want your point buy to align statistically with 4d6 drop lowest rolling, change it from 27 points to 31 points.

This model results in regaining points when you buy scores under 8. If you don't like the feeling of this, you can re-center your point buy. Add 14 to all costs, and a 27-point buy becomes a 111-point buy. (How hobbity!)

The most extreme array you can get with a 27-point buy is probably 18-18-18-4-4-4.​

 

[Xeviat]

Here is my suggestion:

18: 19 points
17: 15 points
16: 12 points
15: 9 points
14: 7 points
13: 5 points
12: 4 points
11: 3 points
10: 2 points
9: 1 point
8: 0 points
7: 0 points
6: -1 points
5: -1 points
4: -1 points
3: -2 points

I did similar, but I was stingier with the negative modifiers. I also give 30 points.

I’m looking at boosting starting HP so my game may be able to handle 18s at level 1. 20s maybe.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ro]

I did similar, but I was stingier with the negative modifiers.

It's probably worth making everything below 8 a unique cost at least, to create at least some decision point. (7=-1, 6=-2, 5=-3, 4=-4, 3=-5)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There seems to be no way around it. Using the statistics of the weighted 4d6 Drop to determine point cost arrays, creates high primary ability arrays that are noticeably better than the standard array.

Yeah, this has been noticed before. I'm not particularly fond of it, but at best guess it was WotC's intention to compensate players for taking the risk.

 

[Yaarel]

Heck, mathematically a 16 is more likely on 4d6 drop the lower than an 8, but you can get then 8 but not the 16. That's not them trying to be mathematically rigorous, it's them trying to craft something that fits the game they've designed well.

You suggest. The designers are ‘trying to craft’ the design of the game.

They omitted the 16 ability score from the array because they want 16s to be scarce. They designed the game around the assumption that only about 1-in-8 characters would have a 16, 17, or 18, at all. And even then, only if they rolled dice randomly to generate the arrays for them.

A high ability score, above 15, ‘fits’ less into the design of the 5e game. The designers made them possible, but discouraged them.

In order to create a point cost that makes a 16 possible, it is also necessary to discourage players from choosing an array with one in it. Ideally, if given a choice between arrays, 7-out-of-8 players should decide that they dislike the array with a 16 or higher, and instead choose one of the arrays with a 15 or 14 as the highest ability score. This way, the 16 remains scarce and ‘fits’ within the ‘crafted’ design.

In order for 16s to be scarce, it is important to make sure the point cost for a 16 is expensive.

 

[Yaarel]

Where the 15 score costs 9 points, a 16 score costing about 14 points, looks correct. In the above list of a hundred generated arrays, compare those arrays with a 16 in it, to official arrays with a 15 or 14 in it. It is hard to say which array is better ... because they are roughly equal in value. A 16 at this cost is right.

It seems to me, several posters in this thread are fond of the 3e point costs, and the very high ability scores that they make easy to acquire. But the 3e method is broken. The method excessively cheapens the cost of high scores, thus inflates the frequency of gaining a score higher than 15. It generates arrays that are (wildly) unequal to each other, depending on how high the primary ability is in each array.

The ability score costs in the original post of this thread, are safe. They are recommended to DMs who want to make a 16 ability score available to their players, but want to prevent high ability scores from disrupting the game.

 

[Yaarel]

18: 19 points
17: 15 points
16: 12 points
15: 9 points
14: 7 points
13: 5 points
12: 4 points
11: 3 points
10: 2 points
9: 1 point
8: 0 points
7: 0 points
6: -1 points
5: -1 points
4: -1 points
3: -2 points

I did similar, but I was stingier with the negative modifiers. I also give 30 points.

I’m looking at boosting starting HP so my game may be able to handle 18s at level 1. 20s maybe.

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION]. Your costs for the high ability scores seem too cheap.

Suppose the official 27 points to spend on an array, plus the race with +2 and +1.

18: 19 points
11: 2 points
10: 2 points
10: 2 points
10: 2 points
6: −1 point

18 11 10 10 10 6 → 20 12 10 10 10 6

OR

18 10 10 10 10 8 → 20 11 10 10 10 8



Or, if I need two strong abilities, then gain the following.

16 13 12 10 10 8 → 18 14 12 10 10 8



Now compare the above arrays with official arrays.

13 13 13 12 12 12 → 15 14 13 12 12 12
15 14 13 12 10 8 → 16 16 13 12 10 8
15 14 14 10 10 8 → 16 16 14 10 10 8
14 14 13 12 12 8 → 16 14 14 12 12 8




So, which array would you rather have?

20 12 10 10 10 6
20 11 10 10 10 8
18 14 12 10 10 8

16 16 14 10 10 8
16 14 14 12 12 8
16 16 13 12 10 8
15 14 13 12 12 12

Without hesitation I would choose one of the first three arrays. In comparison, the official four arrays pale in comparison.

The arrays are simply unequal.

 

[CapnZapp]

You suggest. The designers are ‘trying to craft’ the design of the game.

They omitted the 16 ability score from the array because they want 16s to be scarce. They designed the game around the assumption that only about 1-in-8 characters would have a 16, 17, or 18, at all. And even then, only if they rolled dice randomly to generate the arrays for them.

A high ability score, above 15, ‘fits’ less into the design of the 5e game. The designers made them possible, but discouraged them.

In order to create a point cost that makes a 16 possible, it is also necessary to discourage players from choosing an array with one in it. Ideally, if given a choice between arrays, 7-out-of-8 players should decide that they dislike the array with a 16 or higher, and instead choose one of the arrays with a 15 or 14 as the highest ability score. This way, the 16 remains scarce and ‘fits’ within the ‘crafted’ design.

In order for 16s to be scarce, it is important to make sure the point cost for a 16 is expensive.

Sorry it still does not compute.

You can make it expensive but all that accomplishes is having MAD classes not choose it. SAD classes run by minmaxers will still choose it.

And my guess is that when you said only 1/8 would choose it, you didn't mean that all Rogues and Sorcerers would choose it, but no other classes...

(Very rough example; not making a definite claim these are SAD while every other class is MAD)

You see, the defining trait is still lack of randomness.

It's like when designing a feat, say. Even if it's balanced for 7 out of 8 it will still cause problems if it's OP for the remaining eighth build.

Therefore it's better, if you absolutely must offer high ability point-buy, to keep costs generously low, and instead tell your players to first choose class and then roll a d8: every player that rolls 8 gets to purchase scores of 16-18; everyone else is restricted to the PHB's 15.

Since the cost isn't too high, all classes can enjoy buying their 16s or higher.

In short; you can't balance point buy around the cost. All you accomplish is favorizing some classes over the others. You will effectively give some classes free feats; a huge advantage and a very unbalanced one.

If we for a second assume Sorcerer is SAD while Wizard is MAD (not saying that's the actual case; bear with me for the example's sake) and furthermore assume both classes are equally powerful, what would you choose?

I know I would choose Sorcerer every time if I could buy Charisma 18, increase it through race to 20, and then get to buy feats at level 4 and 8.

Since we assume the two classes are equal at start, it is highly unbalancing to offer a chargen procedure that allows one class to sport three feats at level 12, while the other only sports one.

Hence I'm arguing there is a definite point to keep costs low (or low:ish) and force players to choose class before they're told they can point-buy scores higher than 15.

In short: there is much more to good game design than merely a grasp of basic probabilities. Thank you.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app