Level Up (A5E) Alternative pointbuy system

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I mean, it's your game, you can do whatever you want with it.

For me, the costs and overall number of points you gave don't make any sense at all in the general context of D&D settings and npcs: most humanoids will have an average score of 9-11 in all stats. Of course there can be the horribly disfigured, the exceptionally weak and the incredibly stupid, but those are serious exceptions. With this system, you're pushing character creation to be absolutely mediocre, otherwise most characters will be savant in one stat and absolutely horrible in everything else. Not fun, IMO.

For the same reason I also never liked the swinginess of dice rolling stats and the crazy 3-18 spread of stats. It can be interesting to play a character with a particular weakness, but it'd rather do it in a different way (addictions, other kinds of flaws etc) than a dump stat.

Stats play a modest part in the overall LU and o5e maths: proeficiency (or lack thereof) immediately imparts a +2 difference (and it gets wider with higher levels), and expertise dice can boost the outcomes even more. The distinction between a specialist and a generalist comes from where you put your proeficiencies and expertise, not from your stats.
The core books include only one use of the word disfigure, that use is in reference to a magic item animating corpses that have injuries or disfigurements & doesn't really track to the sort of usage you are using. I don't even think there is an "x-y represents typical" in anything with more weight than the simple coincidence of 10x6 for commoner & certainly couldn't find any.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

lichmaster

Adventurer
I was using the term "disfigured" to indicate a potential in game explanation for an exceptionally low cha score. It could also be due to the character being impossibly obnoxious, or whatever, it really doesn't matter.

10 is average simply because it doesn't give any bonus or malus, there's no coincidence. Ordinary people shouldn't have a bonus or a penalty because they are, well, average. Better then average people get a mod bonus, resulting in higher chances of success, and vice versa for lower than average. Int scores lower than 3 indicate animal like intelligence, and around 5 could be reached by primates or particularly brilliant animals (heralds mounts and similar). Even a char with 7 int would be severely impaired by these standards.

What were once racial bonuses to attributes (now no longer part of the game), were included to give both a mechanical and in game description of better than average human. In a5e that is partially recovered by the background bonus, which explains why a character from that background can perform slightly better than average. Of course, if the said character starts with a lower than average, that modifier only puts it "on par". Instead, if the character started already better than average, the additional modifier coming from the background would put it in the "elite" tier.

Honestly, I don't see a points for further discussions here: you're proposing a system which is heavily different from what's there, tried to justify the reasoning behind it, and coming up with something that personally I don't think makes sense from a numeric or gaming pov (results in characters way too boring or extreme that very few players would like to play). Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I was using the term "disfigured" to indicate a potential in game explanation for an exceptionally low cha score. It could also be due to the character being impossibly obnoxious, or whatever, it really doesn't matter.
One doesn't need to be obnoxious to find it difficult to persuade skeptical people
10 is average simply because it doesn't give any bonus or malus, there's no coincidence. Ordinary people shouldn't have a bonus or a penalty because they are, well, average. Better then average people get a mod bonus, resulting in higher chances of success, and vice versa for lower than average. Int scores lower than 3 indicate animal like intelligence, and around 5 could be reached by primates or particularly brilliant animals (heralds mounts and similar). Even a char with 7 int would be severely impaired by these standards.
By the same standard PC's are extraordinary rather than ordinary & some of that results in being far above the ordinary person in some areas & far below in others. If PCs are not average ordinary people why would you expect them to have the same standards? People never have trouble swallowing the idea that PCs can be better than an average ordinary commoner in some areas but being better in some areas that doesn't mean that a PC can't be worse in others
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Here's some criteria and assumptions I have for D&D 5e point buy systems.

Assumption #1: D&D, any edition, rewards specialization. A few good to great scores is more impactful than a bunch of slightly positive. The bell curve of 3d6 is good for making sure there aren't too many too high or too low, and the 4d6 drop the lowest is better for a heroic individuals while still keeping the spirit, with the added benefit of not have too many penalty scores.

This leads to:
Criteria #1: Very high and very low scores should be exponentially rarer in a point buy system.
Criteria #2: High net modifier penalty scores, be it in a single one or across several, should be discouraged.

Assumption #2: Racial will add +2/+1, and these will usually push up important scores for the character. With Assumption #1, usually one will be in the most important ability.

Assumption #3: The Faustian bargain designed in 5e where both an ASI and a feat are desirable is good game design. It leads to meaningful choices, which help define that character vs. others.

Criteria #3: Characters need to have room to grow in their most important ability score after character creation, including racial mods.

Assumption #4: IF using a system with static ability score modifiers per race (in other words, without Tasha's), certain player types will aim for highest possible specialization. If a point buy system ends on an even number, that will limit race/class choices to those that gives +2 for those players, leading to limited and repetitive choices. If it ends on a odd number, then either the +1 or +2 can be used, leading to a wider selection of race/class combos.

Criteria #4: In the case of static ability score modifiers by race, the top entry in point buy should be odd.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
One doesn't need to be obnoxious to find it difficult to persuade skeptical people

By the same standard PC's are extraordinary rather than ordinary & some of that results in being far above the ordinary person in some areas & far below in others. If PCs are not average ordinary people why would you expect them to have the same standards? People never have trouble swallowing the idea that PCs can be better than an average ordinary commoner in some areas but being better in some areas that doesn't mean that a PC can't be worse in others
"Worse" should indicate 7-8s, not 3s.

So my question to you is, why do you find 27 points in the current point buy system "too generous"?
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
"Worse" should indicate 7-8s, not 3s.

So my question to you is, why do you find 27 points in the current point buy system "too generous"?
Levelup monsters seem better about it as far as I've seen so far but it comes down to the need to make room for magic items. It wouldn't matter if players started with 20/18/17/16/15/14 if the monster math had a baked in allocation of magic items expected and a sidebar somewhere that said words to the effect of "if you are running a campaign with few or no magic items you should consider giving players bonuses such as these at x y & z levels" but lacking that kind of baked in math adding them requires shifting numbers on the fly with every monster in session after session. The new numbers are quite low or sporting a severe deficit as some have noted specifically to create significant room for magic items rather than just putting off the problem to when players start looking to upgrade their +1 doodad.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Levelup monsters seem better about it as far as I've seen so far but it comes down to the need to make room for magic items. It wouldn't matter if players started with 20/18/17/16/15/14 if the monster math had a baked in allocation of magic items expected and a sidebar somewhere that said words to the effect of "if you are running a campaign with few or no magic items you should consider giving players bonuses such as these at x y & z levels" but lacking that kind of baked in math adding them requires shifting numbers on the fly with every monster in session after session. The new numbers are quite low or sporting a severe deficit as some have noted specifically to create significant room for magic items rather than just putting off the problem to when players start looking to upgrade their +1 doodad.
This... doesn't make a lot of sense.

For starters, by having such low stats, you're penalizing not just combat stats (because it can be improved by magic items) but also the stats used for exploration and social. Since your system basically allows for a person to be good at one thing only, you are forcing the players to choose one of those three tiers to be OK at while making them bad at the other two tiers. Even in 05e, which never emphasized exploration and social as much as they thought they did, this wouldn't be cool. And it's definitely not cool in LU. Your system is basically crippling the PCs two-thirds of the time.

Secondly, you don't need to "shift numbers of the fly with every monster." You can plan in advance. Or you can let some battles be tougher or easier. Remind your players that both using tactics beyond "I attack" and retreat are options.

Third, you still don't need magic items to defeat the monsters. I'll have to go reread the MM but I don't think any of them require magic to kill; magic just makes it easier and faster. And if there are monsters that do require magic, then you can either introduce nonmagical ways to defeat them such as bane poisons or traps, or you can simply not use them.

Fourth, many players, possibly most, don't want to rely on magic items to be cool for them. They want to be able to do the cool stuff. That's one of the advantages of LU, because the maneuvers allow for much more cool stuff in combat. Likewise, not every player is going to want to build a stronghold just to get a +1 to a stat, because not every PC has a stronghold type of personality.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
This... doesn't make a lot of sense.

For starters, by having such low stats, you're penalizing not just combat stats (because it can be improved by magic items) but also the stats used for exploration and social.
Magic items can be used there too.
Since your system basically allows for a person to be good at one thing only, you are forcing the players to choose one of those three tiers to be OK at while making them bad at the other two tiers. Even in 05e, which never emphasized exploration and social as much as they thought they did, this wouldn't be cool. And it's definitely not cool in LU. Your system is basically crippling the PCs two-thirds of the time.

Secondly, you don't need to "shift numbers of the fly with every monster." You can plan in advance. Or you can let some battles be tougher or easier. Remind your players that both using tactics beyond "I attack" and retreat are options.

Third, you still don't need magic items to defeat the monsters. I'll have to go reread the MM but I don't think any of them require magic to kill; magic just makes it easier and faster. And if there are monsters that do require magic, then you can either introduce nonmagical ways to defeat them such as bane poisons or traps, or you can simply not use them.
Magic items are not needed and there is no add this if no magic items is the problem, there's no disagreement about that being the default.
Fourth, many players, possibly most, don't want to rely on magic items to be cool for them. They want to be able to do the cool stuff. That's one of the advantages of LU, because the maneuvers allow for much more cool stuff in combat. Likewise, not every player is going to want to build a stronghold just to get a +1 to a stat, because not every PC has a stronghold type of personality.
Funny I've never seen players not ask for & hunt for magic items. Players not only want magic items, they very much expect them as something they are obligated to being able to obtain. Once they obtain them however the GM needs to make changes to things behind the curtain & the players will expect bigger better magic items in their one area because they don't need them in other areas by default either.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Magic items can be used there too.
You're ignoring the point, which is that you're severely penalizing people for no real reason because you expect magic to make up for it.

Magic items are not needed and there is no add this if no magic items is the problem, there's no disagreement about that being the default.
Except in your system, magic items are needed. In fact, you just said that right above: "magic items can be used there too."

You seem to want the players to be completely average, in the sense of if you give them a bonus, then they have to also have a penalty. Or rather, you're having them start out disadvantaged so that you can then eventually let them catch up when you deign to let them have the items.

Funny I've never seen players not ask for & hunt for magic items. Players not only want magic items, they very much expect them as something they are obligated to being able to obtain. Once they obtain them however the GM needs to make changes to things behind the curtain & the players will expect bigger better magic items in their one area because they don't need them in other areas by default either.
Funny, in my games, players rarely ask for or hunt for magic items. They're nice when they come up, and in the games I run I definitely give them out--but I almost never give out +X items, because I find those boring. They're usually items with neat effects, not bonuses. I don't even have magic stores in either of my games, although I did have the herbalist sell some potions/alchemical objects.

And the only changes you need to make are remembering that a player tends to do more damage or has some other ability.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
You're ignoring the point, which is that you're severely penalizing people for no real reason because you expect magic to make up for it.


Except in your system, magic items are needed. In fact, you just said that right above: "magic items can be used there too."

You seem to want the players to be completely average, in the sense of if you give them a bonus, then they have to also have a penalty. Or rather, you're having them start out disadvantaged so that you can then eventually let them catch up when you deign to let them have the items.


Funny, in my games, players rarely ask for or hunt for magic items. They're nice when they come up, and in the games I run I definitely give them out--but I almost never give out +X items, because I find those boring. They're usually items with neat effects, not bonuses. I don't even have magic stores in either of my games, although I did have the herbalist sell some potions/alchemical objects.

And the only changes you need to make are remembering that a player tends to do more damage or has some other ability.
You seem to very clearly grasp & express disdain for the fact that lowering PC starting attributes shifts them to require some degree of magic items, why does the inverse of that bounce off? If reducing attributes to make a system that does not require players to have magic items makes them require them the inverse is that a system that does not require them will overload by adding them unless changes are made all over behind the curtain by the gm (ie to monsters, dc's, & everything else magic items boost).
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
You seem to very clearly grasp & express disdain for the fact that lowering PC starting attributes shifts them to require some degree of magic items, why does the inverse of that bounce off?
I have no idea what this means.

If reducing attributes to make a system that does not require players to have magic items makes them require them the inverse is that a system that does not require them will overload by adding them unless changes are made all over behind the curtain by the gm (ie to monsters, dc's, & everything else magic items boost).
So my next question is, why do you want PCs to have to rely on magic items instead of their own abilities?

Are you finding that the PCs are "too good" at what they do when they don't have to rely on magic items? If so, why is that a bad thing for you? Why can't you make DCs higher, or set them against tougher foes? Why can't you just let them succeed at their tasks?

Do you think that magic items are just so cool that you want to have them everywhere in your game, and thus are afraid of going Monty Haul on them if they also have regular stats?

Are you trying to control the players by making them reliant on an object--magic items--that only you can allow them access to, thus giving you more power over them?

Because I literally don't know why you think 27 points and the regular point cost is too high, or why you think players would be happy with their exceedingly low stats.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I have no idea what this means.


So my next question is, why do you want PCs to have to rely on magic items instead of their own abilities?

Are you finding that the PCs are "too good" at what they do when they don't have to rely on magic items? If so, why is that a bad thing for you? Why can't you make DCs higher, or set them against tougher foes? Why can't you just let them succeed at their tasks?

Do you think that magic items are just so cool that you want to have them everywhere in your game, and thus are afraid of going Monty Haul on them if they also have regular stats?

Are you trying to control the players by making them reliant on an object--magic items--that only you can allow them access to, thus giving you more power over them?

Because I literally don't know why you think 27 points and the regular point cost is too high, or why you think players would be happy with their exceedingly low stats.
I want PC's to require some level of magic items so I don't need to track all the areas players are given magic items to improve & adjust things on my end to compensate. Adjustments are required because the base math assumes no magic items & adding them overloads things as a result. This is an unreasonable headache for a gm to manage over the course of a campaign that could easily span a year given my average.

Players can craft things, they are welcome to craft magic items & there are quite a few pages between the AG & T&T devoted to doing just that. AG426- 428 & T&T348-356 is all about how to craft magic items specifically & doesn't even get into listing one off abilities like how some strongholds will help with certain types of crafting. Providing players with room to actually use the magic items they create is the opposite of trying to control them I don't just want them to take advantage of those rules, I want them to feel empowered & incentivized to use the magic items they create rather than needing to be strict about limiting it.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I want PC's to require some level of magic items so I don't need to track all the areas players are given magic items to improve & adjust things on my end to compensate. Adjustments are required because the base math assumes no magic items & adding them overloads things as a result. This is an unreasonable headache for a gm to manage over the course of a campaign that could easily span a year given my average.
It doesn't really overload everything. The base math may assume no magic items, but you don't really need to worry about that when calculating an encounter. If they have so many magic items that you think they're OP, then make the monsters tougher by adding 1 or 2 to the total party level. You also don't need a totally accurate record (and if you do, you can just have them send you a copy of their sheet), unless you have dishonest players who lie about what abilities have. Guesstimating is fine. I tried to be perfectly accurate for a long time before realizing that it was actually a lot more fun for everyone, including myself, if I didn't worry about that so much.

Also, you're not making a lot of sense here. You want them to need magic items so you don't have to track the magic items? Honestly, this feels like you're trying to punish the players so you don't have to do bookkeeping.

Players can craft things, they are welcome to craft magic items & there are quite a few pages between the AG & T&T devoted to doing just that. AG426- 428 & T&T348-356 is all about how to craft magic items specifically & doesn't even get into listing one off abilities like how some strongholds will help with certain types of crafting. Providing players with room to actually use the magic items they create is the opposite of trying to control them I don't just want them to take advantage of those rules, I want them to feel empowered & incentivized to use the magic items they create rather than needing to be strict about limiting it.
But you still have to allow them to craft things, and let them have the downtime and gold with which to do it--all things you control.

But anyway, if you feel this is the best solution for your game, go for it. I hope your players are OK with it.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
It doesn't really overload everything. The base math may assume no magic items, but you don't really need to worry about that when calculating an encounter. If they have so many magic items that you think they're OP, then make the monsters tougher by adding 1 or 2 to the total party level. You also don't need a totally accurate record (and if you do, you can just have them send you a copy of their sheet), unless you have dishonest players who lie about what abilities have. Guesstimating is fine. I tried to be perfectly accurate for a long time before realizing that it was actually a lot more fun for everyone, including myself, if I didn't worry about that so much.

Also, you're not making a lot of sense here. You want them to need magic items so you don't have to track the magic items? Honestly, this feels like you're trying to punish the players so you don't have to do bookkeeping.


But you still have to allow them to craft things, and let them have the downtime and gold with which to do it--all things you control.

But anyway, if you feel this is the best solution for your game, go for it. I hope your players are OK with it.
The same logic applies in reverse. If magic items don't overload the math of the system when added then subtracting from stats won't harm the players.
 

le Redoutable

I mean you no harm
You can do something like that :
stats multiply ( like in 10x10x10x10x10x10 )
giving 0-levels a 12 and five 10s
( 12x10x10x10x10x10 )
then for PCs you do a ( 10+PC Level ) to one stat
( 12x(10+PC Level)x10x10x10x10 )
these are points that you can arrange as you wish
example for a 0-level:
12x10x10x10x10x10 = 1.200.000
with 1.200.000 you can build a
8x15x10x10x10x10
8x8x8x8x15x16
( well, it's only experimental lol )
 

rules.mechanic

Craft homebrewer
@tetrasodium You may or may not want to match 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest probability but, if you do, here're a couple of options for that:

Tome of Variance v3.5 2-05.jpg
 

lichmaster

Adventurer
@tetrasodium You may or may not want to match 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest probability but, if you do, here're a couple of options for that:

View attachment 153732
This is a very interesting implementation.
Basically, we assume an underlying distribution and we sample values from it, with the prescription that we also maintain the balance for the percentiles for all the scores in the array of the 6 abilities (if you have the 50+nth percentile on an ability you must have the 50-nth percentile on another ability), so that the final array has a guaranteed median of 12, the distribution is symmetric (within rounding precision), but the kurtosis depends on how much you min-max your choices.

Something interesting emerges if we look at the modifiers instead of the raw scores (which are pretty much never used in the game, except maybe str for carrying capacity). One thing intrinsic to how ability modifiers are computed since 3E is that odd scores are always "suboptimal" in the sense that an increase of 1 point from an even number doesn't give any mechanical advantage, while a decrese of 1 point results in a modifier reduced by 1.
With this sysyem the basic array would be a 12 in each score, for a +1 modifier in each, or a total +2 modifier for each pair of abilities.
If we use the first variant, and stick to even numbers, the "good" choices are 10-14 (we lose a +1 on one score and gain it on another one), and 8-16 (we lose/gain 2). All other choices are poor because we lose a +1 modifier on one side without gaining it on the other (see 11-13, 9-15, 7-17 and 5-18)
This however doesn't account for background modifiers, that allow us to add 1 point on a given score.
This is very useful, as we can "gain" modifiers for free on a single pair: if we add the free 1 point increase to the lowest score of any single pair, ALL choices become optimal again (we have a total +2 modifier on each pair), while if we add it to the highest score, instead, all choices are optimal except for the pair that would be 5-19, were we still have a total +1 modifier (also some DMs may not allow starting with a 19 in a score). In the economy of the game it probably still "sucks" to have odd ability scores, but at least you're not effectively penalized in terms of total ability score modifiers. In LU however single point increases can be bought with a modest investment in a stronghold, without resorting to magic items, so it may still be a good deal, especially for characters that start at level higher than 1 and/or have enough money.

The second variant removes the constraint on the symmetry of the distribution of the 6 ability scores and allows for more varied characters. Also interesting is that it is not possible to generate the standard array (or better, one ends up with a "credit" of 2 points that cannot be spent). The closest one could get with this system would be 15-14-13-12-12-8 (or 15-14-13-13-11-8), which are quite better as they replace a 12 and a 10 with either two 12s or an 11 and a 13. Again we have to factor in one "free" point coming from the background ASI.
In terms of modifiers, both options end up with a total of +6 (unless in the second case we bring an even number to and odd one, which would be quite masochistic IMO).
The most min-maxed options would be 18-18-18-5-5-5, which could become 19-18-18-5-5-5 or 18-18-18-6-5-5 after the ASI has been factored in. Again, the total modifier is +6 in the first case, and +7 in the second case (because we've been smart and put the free point in an odd score to gain a +1 modifier somewhere).

So, all in all, I think this could be dramatically simplified as follows:
  • you can have the scores you want (no higher than 18 in each), as long as the sum of your modifiers is +6.
  • you then add your background free ASI, which can bring your total sum of modifiers to +7 (but not always, one has to be a little bit smart to figure it out, no big deal though).

This dramatically simple approach can be tailored to more gritty or heroic campaigns simply by changing the total sum of modifiers (maybe +4 or +3 for more mundane campaigns, up to +8 for very epic ones), or by increasing/decreasing the highest score one can buy this way
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
@tetrasodium You may or may not want to match 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest probability but, if you do, here're a couple of options for that:

View attachment 153732
That zero point buy is an interesting start, but it feels more like something with a function of ensuring that resulting "rolls" are statistically believable & even the standard elite array of 15/14/13/12/10/8 leaves extra points to improve till you wind up with things like the completely bonkers 18/18/18/5+1/5+1/5 that @lichmaster noted. very the low odds of numbers below 8 with 4d6k3 is not properly weighted to the value of being able to minmax themuch better odds of high scores above 12 exactly asd much or little as needed. Almost no character needs more than 3 maybe 4 stats & even that odd nich ultra-MAD build could 18/18/16/8/5+1/5+1 for merely about average in the 4th & still has room to improve that 8 by reducing the 5's in attributes they expect to never use

I think part of the problem with point buy setups lies in the game evolving since 1st & 2nd edition with regards to how stats are handled without ever really rejiggering the pointbuy numbers around. Back in ad&d2.0(and maybe 1e?) a player didn't pick up a +1/-1 till they hit 6 or 15 effectively making 7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14 a dead zone varied a bit from score. In 3.x that got standardized to +/-1 for every 2 points above or below 10 so suddenly the dead zone became meaningful and the part that would give negatives mostly went away for pointbuy with a floor of 8 for zero points. That suddenly meaningful deadzone was somewhat mitigated by much tighter system math that assumed certain amounts of bonuses from magic items at different levels & differences in DC targets among other stuff like DR/x resist/x or SR/x but 5e did away with all that by shifting from most attacks miss to almost everything is successful most of the time unless it's your dump stat & untrained where the odds are merely okay.

Fixing that pg33 tome of variance pointbuy option might be doable, but it would probably still fall prey to the problems built up in pointbuy over the editions. Going a completely different route that puts the actual value of most attributes on the sheet front & center by presenting players with a choice of one or two stats with a number of points to buy the remaining 4-5 attributes based on that choice might be better.
The numbers could use some work but are chosen just to show an example of concept
  • 1x18 then enough points to where the remaining stats are going to be a 6 or 7 unless deeper cuts are made to some in order to boost others.
  • 1x15 1x11 then enough points for a bunch of 7s & 8s unless deeper cuts are made for some
  • 2x13 then enough points for a bunch of 10s unless deeper cuts are made
 

rules.mechanic

Craft homebrewer
Thanks both, food for thought (and impressed by the gritty/heroic callback and the GMBinder link!). You are very right - the truth is that the inherent skew of the 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest distribution is always going to struggle with the purchasing power of having access to the lowest scores. And the game isn't well set up for PCs that start with a primary stat of 19. I would definitely recommend limiting the extreme ranges (even though I used softer phrasing with the Tome's "you may wish to restrict how wide a range is available") and consider only allowing one instance of the most extreme value that you do permit. An alternative might be to use the 3d6 distribution (I'll maybe add that to the next version), which might also work better with @lichmaster 's simplified balanced modifier approach.

PS The A5E version of the Tome is nearly done. There's less need for some of the options but I've generally left them in, just fitting them in with the Expertise dice system etc.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Thanks both, food for thought (and impressed by the gritty/heroic callback and the GMBinder link!). You are very right - the truth is that the inherent skew of the 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest distribution is always going to struggle with the purchasing power of having access to the lowest scores. And the game isn't well set up for PCs that start with a primary stat of 19. I would definitely recommend limiting the extreme ranges (even though I used softer phrasing with the Tome's "you may wish to restrict how wide a range is available") and consider only allowing one instance of the most extreme value that you do permit. An alternative might be to use the 3d6 distribution (I'll maybe add that to the next version), which might also work better with @lichmaster 's simplified balanced modifier approach.

PS The A5E version of the Tome is nearly done. There's less need for some of the options but I've generally left them in, just fitting them in with the Expertise dice system etc.
In all honesty I wouldn't mind a PC starting out with one 19 if the other scores were enough of a deficit that the penalties on a SAD class's dump stats actually mattered enough to hurt. I did some playing around with that sort of pick one then you get an associated number of points to spend this morning using [spoiler="these numbers"
  • 13,13 +points for 12, 10, 8, 8
  • 15,11 +points for, 9, 8, 8, 7
  • 16,6 +points for 8, 8, +8, 7
  • just in curiosity 20, 3 +points for 10, 5, 4, 4
[/spoiler]
I couldn't get anything that seemed to work in a sane fashion that couldn't be abused like that 18/18/185/5/5 to a lesser degree & it almost seemed like it would need a different array of costs to buy from to make each work but doing that would allow it to work great while solving as lot of the problems built up in pointbuy over the editions even if it took a lot of space to convey.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top