D&D 5E Alternate ability generation rule

[sunrisekid]

3d6 six times, assigned in order, but you can change one stat for a 14

I'm either going with this or with the option of re-rolling 1s. This all goes without saying that my players "buy in" for how awesome it is not necessarily have the stats you want ;-)

 

[Skyscraper]

Hi Nef, I think you idea is original, however it suffers from a few drawbacks in my opinion.

1) At low level all PCs are equal and average in all stats. I would think that might be a little... boring for players. I.e. no PC stands out in any way.

2) PCs have no bonuses in their main ability score until they reach at least 12 in their main stat.

3) Assuming that players will boost their main stat up to at least, say, 16, this means that until they reach at least level 8, all will have 10 in all other stats. This is a long way before any PC distinguishes himself from others in any way.

4) PCs will slolwy but constantly change. You won't find that any PC distinguishes himself from others stat-wise until late in the game. But while one PC might have been the agile one at low levels, he's not the only one to be agile at mid levels. Sounds strange.

 

[Skyscraper]

So... 3d6 six times, assign in the order they're rolled, and assign 14 to one stat. I've further thought about this and I've rolled a bunch of pregens (with purple sorcerer's DCC 0-level character generator, you can get 4 at a time) to test this system see how it goes. I'd say that about 75% of the characters rolled up were playable, i.e. not too shaby and not disturbingly powerful either.

So I've come up with two additional options to even out the playing ground. The method (until someone comes up with a better idea anyway ) is as follows:

1) you are born: choose race (yes, race before rolling things up!). Do not apply racial ability score bonuses yet.
2) natural selection: roll two sets of stats, each 3d6 assigned in the order they are rolled. Pick the one you wish to keep.
3) character development: if you wish, set one ability score value to 14 instead of the value that was rolled up
4) nobody's perfect: if you do not have at least (a) one ability score of 7 or lower; or (b) two ability scores of 9 or lower: assign a value of 7 or lower to one ability score of your choice. If you do not, restart the process from scratch.
5) apply racial bonuses to your stats.

I wish to avoid the really crappy PC: offering the choice between two sets of ability scores and assigning 14 to one stat will probably avoid this in most circumstances.

I also wish to avoid the super heroic PC, thus the restriction in #4. I want the PC to have at least one weakness even after racial modifiers are accounted for.

 

[clearstream]

Those two last ideas are very interesting also, namely:

- 3d6 six times, select two to assign, randomly assign the 4 others
- 3d6 six times, assigned in order, but you have an additional 3d6 roll for two stats of your choice, selected before the roll, where you keep the best of the two for those two stats

And, I'm keeping the previous idea:

- 3d6 six times, assigned in order, but you can change one stat for a 14

Seems like our thoughts are in the same direction. 3d6 six times, pick two attributes and make another 3d6 roll for each of those replacing the first if better is appealing quite well to me. I also like your idea to roll two arrays and keep the one you like, albeit I would make the forced 7 the price for taking the 14 I.e. not automatic.

 

[77IM]

Here is another idea, coming at this from a different direction. It could be combined with some of the above ideas.

1. Roll 5 scores (3d6).
2. Generate the sixth score as 68 minus the total of your other 5 scores (min 3, max 18).
3. Assign the generated score to a random ability.
4. Assign the rolled scores to the remaining abilities, in order.

The idea is that all characters should have ability score totals of 68, with a good chance of having a 15-16. If you roll crap you'll at least have one 18, and if you roll awesome you may be stuck with a 3.

 

[clearstream]

Here is another idea, coming at this from a different direction. It could be combined with some of the above ideas.

1. Roll 5 scores (3d6).
2. Generate the sixth score as 68 minus the total of your other 5 scores (min 3, max 18).
3. Assign the generated score to a random ability.
4. Assign the rolled scores to the remaining abilities, in order.

The idea is that all characters should have ability score totals of 68, with a good chance of having a 15-16. If you roll crap you'll at least have one 18, and if you roll awesome you may be stuck with a 3.

Nice idea. Can you tweak it so player isn't forced into a class by the random assignation?

 

[77IM]

Nice idea. Can you tweak it so player isn't forced into a class by the random assignation?

Sure. This is similar to one of my earlier ideas.

1. Roll 3d6 for each ability, in order.
2. If your total is less than 72, distribute the difference between one or two ability scores of your choice, to a max of 17.

This isn't guaranteed to work since you could roll all 12s and still be within the threshold, but it's unlikely. In fact getting a total of 72+ is pretty rare on a straight 3d6-in-order roll, and when it happens you will be looking at some pretty decent scores. In the expected case you should have around 6-12 points to spread between the two abilities.

 

[BASHMAN]

I like it. Some characters will be better then others but that's a simple problem to deal with.

How is it dealt with? I've only ever heard this "dealt with" in one of two ways:

"Suck it up crybaby! Just because your best score is an 11 and the GM's spouse's lowest is a 16 doesn't mean the game isn't fun!" (Aka don't deal with it at all, just insist this particular player continue to have a very frustrating experience and mock them anytime they have a complaint).

Method 2. "As you start your adventuring careers, leaving the village for the first time, you spot a vast chasm.."
"I find out how deep the chasm is... by jumping in it."
"You die, roll a new character"
"YESSSS!" (AKA, hopeless character is so distraught by his comparative lowness of scores he suicides at the first opportunity for the chance to roll up something better.)

 

[BASHMAN]

Might yield a crappy character though... But I think this is part of the fun

The most important question is do your PLAYERS think it is part of the fun?

Dealing with an adversarial DM who is always out to "get" the players can be fun (simply surviving the experience is a sort of bragging right) but not everyone is into that. I'm asking because I've dealt with the aforementioned adversarial type of GM before and was okay with it; but my friend in the group was angry to the point of shaking by the end of the session (it was a convention game).

 

[Crothian]

How is it dealt with? I've only ever heard this "dealt with" in one of two ways:

"Suck it up crybaby! Just because your best score is an 11 and the GM's spouse's lowest is a 16 doesn't mean the game isn't fun!" (Aka don't deal with it at all, just insist this particular player continue to have a very frustrating experience and mock them anytime they have a complaint).

There is a lot of baggage in your reply.

The way we deal with it is make sure the game is fun for everyone. Stats are over rated in my games. The story revolves around the PC no matter what their stats are. If the PCs are a bit weaker due to anything mechanical then the encounters we run are easier. I do not punish players for having bad character ability scores. If the player really doesn't want the character then they get a new character but first I try to work with them together we make it work.

If your group is doing anything else then I question why on Earth you would play with them.