Level Up (A5E) Alternative pointbuy system

[tetrasodium]

Sure, if you like, but with your chart I can't make a "typical" character with a 14 without the other 5 stats looking something like 14/9/9/9/3/3 (39 points). I feel like we're missing some information.

You can get one or two points to a stat from your stronghold, weapons & armor come in +0/+1/+2/+3 versions & more. Ioun stones & tomes can add +2. Levelup has an extensive crafting system & some guidelines on t&t351 about crafting entirely new things where a player could hypothetically make things like the old body slot restricted +1/+2/+4/+6 stat gear.

Let's put it another way: Using your chart, what are the abilities of some typical characters you'd expect to see?

Here's a few.

• 48point:
  • 15+1/13+1/10/6/3/3
  • 13+1/11+1/10/8/7/7
  • 15+1/13+1/10/3/3/3
  • 13+1/13+1/10/8/6/3
• 45 point
  • 16+1/11+1/10/6/3/3
  • 13+1/11+1/10/8/7/4
  • 15+1/13+1/10/3/3/3
  • 13+1/12/11+1/10/3/3
• 42 point
  • 16+1/11+1/9/4/3/3
  • 13+1/10/10/8/7+1/3
  • 13+1/13+1/12/3/3/3
  • 13+1/12+1/11*/9*/3/3 with the * choice of +1
• 39 point
  • 16+1/11+1/6/4/3/3
  • 13+1/11+1/10/7/4/3
  • 13+1/13*/11*/3*/3/3 with the * choice of +1
  • 13+1/12/9/7/3/3 with the remaining +1 anywhere
• 36 point
  • You can't say that I wasn't up front about this one. O5e may lack the actual point buy used for the vgtm survivors but 3.5 did with the 15 point buy low Powered Campaign" on dmg170 that allows similar

(Because I don't think it's a "High Powered" 10/10/10/10/10/10 at its most jack-of-all or a "typical" 18/5/4/4/4/3 at its most master-of-one.) Please correct me if I'm wrong!

There are basically zero PCs that need 6x10 or need to be perfectly average in all six stats. Even SAD characters tend to have one prime ability & one or two lesser but still mildly important abilities alongside some dump stats while MAD ones will obviously needsome dump stats

Yeah, the words you're saying do not match the math you're showing.

The words are in the context of the standard array being too generous

This is clearly designed for extremely low stats,

Yes. I as the gm can do things like raise the AC of every monster 2-3 points & continue doing so with hiugher numbers as magic items are handed out or I can save the headache & just start everyone with lower stats.

Of course, even the justifications you give for lowering attribute values don't make sense, since now characters are even more desperate for that next magical upgrade, and sidegrades seem even less useful.

Presentation matters. Take this hgypothetical of the GM wanting to start everyone with lower stats using this kind of thing.

• Scenario one: GM"I'm looking at typical & think it might be good for you guys given how common magic items tend to be in my games & this allows me to be even more generous">players:"that's pretty tight, can we step that up a notch or two?">GM:"Maybe let's negotiate on what yourgiving up getting for your PCs & giving me in terms of buyin into the world"
• Scenario two:
  Spoiler: It looks like this

  
  GM: "I want more room to do things like give out & let you craft more magic items. Everyone should use the 22 point buy option."
  • Players:
    • you need to nerf the monster ACs & DCs for us
    • This "is an incredible nerf and it's basically incompatible with the assumed pc stats."
    • "You can't even make the standard array at all with this system, so the other design tweaks are not gonna be enough to balance it."
    • Letting us gestalt 2 classes 3.5 style & we can talk.
    • etc

 

[Faolyn]

Why not just use the regular point buy system, but with more or fewer points available?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh, so you are serious about most of your characters having 3's in their lowest stat(s)? I had not expected that. In my mind, there is a wide margin between "point buy is too high" (which I don't disagree with) and "most characters should have half their abilities below 6" which you are doing here.

I mean, you do what you like by all means!

 

[tetrasodium]

Why not just use the regular point buy system, but with more or fewer points available?

There's a few reasons to not like the default pointbuy.

• 
  
• Compare it to the 3.5 one (link appears to match dmg close enough) With plus 2 & minus 2 from race an 8 would frequently drop to a six & the 18 could theoretically be taken with severe sacrifices elsewhere. In the default pointbuy a player can't go below the zero point cost 8 or above the nine point 15+1 so the guy specialized in one area is going to be 4 points off from the guy who treats it as a dump stat & frankly both of them are probably going to have +1 +2 or+3 on most things from stat alone. A generalist could exist in the default but the difference between the two extremes is so minor that it's not really notable.
• Some of that last point could be fixed by extending the pointbuy options up with more expensive options & down with negative point cost options below 8 that give points, but then you still have the default 27 point buy being too generous & you just wind up with things like 18/14/13/12/10/3 or whatever you set the ceiling/floor to allow
• Fixing the too generous 27 point buy down to a lower value is doable, but the triviality is faced with all of the "it won't fit standard array" "why are you nerfing me" & similar making it an uphill battle for the gm to even suggest what will look like an outright nerf. The comopletely reworked system allows a more cordial conversation where there is give & take to be discussed not present with "all I need to do is hold my ground ignore everything said & flatly refuse everything

Oh, so you are serious about most of your characters having 3's in their lowest stat(s)? I had not expected that. In my mind, there is a wide margin between "point buy is too high" (which I don't disagree with) and "most characters should have half their abilities below 6" which you are doing here.

I mean, you do what you like by all means!

They don't need a 3 to achieve it if they lower a prime or secondary stat or two. If it would have been an 8 before that was a player's dump stat only to be tested when forced & hopefully some other player specializes in it as their primary/secondary score. Dropping a score from 15+1 to 13+1 can free up 6 points while a 13 to 11 is another 5. I did example arrays that leaned high & often used a 3 for dump stat(s)because in my experience players will say "I need x but not y" & peg them as high & low as they can manage while the odd man out player who is going to crunch the numbers to see dropping a +1 or two can get quite a bit more elsewhere are going to hem & haw a bit to optimize their benefits & minimize the tradeoffs even if it takes a dump stat to make it work.

With all the zomg players need them points I chose to make example arrays that show how players can start with a couple high stats. Remember that strongholds can grant +1 or +2 to a stat ioun stones are craftable tomes are craftable & gobs of other stuff is too now that there are rules for doing that. The numbers & costs are set with the assumption that magic items would generally be as available if not moreso but that rather than forcing the gm to tweak all of the monsters on the fly over a campaign players would have lots of magic items they collect & churn through.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Okay, I get what you're going for now. I can't say I would want abilities quite that low myself, but I follow your reasoning.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay, I get what you're going for now. I can't say I would want abilities quite that low myself, but I follow your reasoning.

it's easier for a system to provide room for the GM to appear benevolent & trade a little extra beyond what they were initially going to allow in exchange for something like players working with them to shape their backgrounds to better fit the world* than it is to leave the gm with no room to do anything but engage in blatant nerfing like "just use the regular point buy system, but with more or fewer points available?".

*or whatever a gm & player could negotiate over

 

[Faolyn]

There's a few reasons to not like the default pointbuy.

• 
  
• Compare it to the 3.5 one (link appears to match dmg close enough) With plus 2 & minus 2 from race an 8 would frequently drop to a six & the 18 could theoretically be taken with severe sacrifices elsewhere. In the default pointbuy a player can't go below the zero point cost 8 or above the nine point 15+1 so the guy specialized in one area is going to be 4 points off from the guy who treats it as a dump stat & frankly both of them are probably going to have +1 +2 or+3 on most things from stat alone. A generalist could exist in the default but the difference between the two extremes is so minor that it's not really notable.
• Some of that last point could be fixed by extending the pointbuy options up with more expensive options & down with negative point cost options below 8 that give points, but then you still have the default 27 point buy being too generous & you just wind up with things like 18/14/13/12/10/3 or whatever you set the ceiling/floor to allow
• Fixing the too generous 27 point buy down to a lower value is doable, but the triviality is faced with all of the "it won't fit standard array" "why are you nerfing me" & similar making it an uphill battle for the gm to even suggest what will look like an outright nerf. The comopletely reworked system allows a more cordial conversation where there is give & take to be discussed not present with "all I need to do is hold my ground ignore everything said & flatly refuse everything

I don't see 27 points as "too generous," and I doubt most people are going to be happy with having -5s and -4s to their rolls. But whatever.

 

[ECMO3]

From a PC development standpoint that squeezes the generalist out from relevance & strongly pushes players to maxing out their primary stat before making other investments like feats. While the generalist might be able to hold their own alongside most specialists with magic items & do reasonably ok in a pinch compared to the PCs specialized away from a given area they no longer need that equipment& a +/-1 isn’t even meaningful alongside the d20 roll. The specialist by extension starts out not all that different in their niche & never really feels any pain for their “weak” area with a whole -1 on it so any gear that shoes up their weakness at all is only worthy of consideration if there is zero cost

I am not sure I agree with this hypothesis for a couple reasons.

First any character can be a generalist by investing in proficiency with a dump stat. For example my 8 strength, 7th level Ranger has proficiency in Athletics for +2 and he has a +3 in Acrobatics due to his 16 Dexterity. So he is a generalist and he is good enough at those two skills that he uses them both frequently, to include using shove in combat occasionally. If he invested in proficiency in acrobatics instead I would argoe that he would be more of a specialist and while he would be almost unstoppable in acrobatics he would not be very good in athletics.

Second it entirely depends on the party size. The aforementioned Ranger is in a party that includes only 2 other players - a Druid and a Warlock. So he is also the "generalist" front liner and frankly below average at that. The Druid is the actual tank but it is quite often my Ranger is in melee sporting a shilaleagh. I could have built a Barbarian or Fighter or taken heavy Armor or medium armor master at 4th level instead of the Dragonfear feat and I could have a 14 Con and 12 Charisma instead of the other way around and if I did that he would be a much, much better tank, althoug still a "generalist". Of course he would not be the "specialist" face he currently is (sporting +8 Intimidation and Persuasion) or the generalist "Gish" he is now if I did that and throwing fear like it is going out of style.

Which would be better for the party overall? I would argue in that 3-person party having a lights out face with a bit of spell control and a bit of melee is better than having a great tank with no control and relying on our Warlock as the face. I would also argue that having a 2nd character who is "ok" in athletics and one who is ok in acrobatics is better than having one 1 character that is "ok" in athletics (the druid) and one that is good in acrobatics.

 

[ECMO3]

From a PC development standpoint that squeezes the generalist out from relevance & strongly pushes players to maxing out their primary stat before making other investments like feats. While the generalist might be able to hold their own alongside most specialists with magic items & do reasonably ok in a pinch compared to the PCs specialized away from a given area they no longer need that equipment& a +/-1 isn’t even meaningful alongside the d20 roll. The specialist by extension starts out not all that different in their niche & never really feels any pain for their “weak” area with a whole -1 on it so any gear that shoes up their weakness at all is only worthy of consideration if there is zero cost

I am not sure I agree with this hypothesis for a couple reasons.

First any character can be a generalist by investing in proficiency with a dump stat. For example my 8 strength, 7th level Ranger has proficiency in Athletics for +2 and he has a +3 in Acrobatics due to his 16 Dexterity. So he is a generalist and he is good enough at those two skills that he uses them both frequently, to include using shove in combat occasionally. If he invested in proficiency in acrobatics instead I would argue that he would be more of a specialist and while he would be great in acrobatics he would not be very good in athletics.

Second it entirely depends on the party size. The aforementioned Ranger is in a party that includes only 2 other players - a Druid and a Warlock. So he is also the "generalist" front liner and frankly below average at that. The Druid is the actual tank but it is quite often my Ranger is in melee sporting a shilaleagh. I could have built a Barbarian or Fighter or taken heavy Armor or medium armor master at 4th level instead of the Dragonfear feat and I could have a 14 Con and 12 Charisma instead of the other way around and if I did that he would be a much, much better tank, althoug still a "generalist". Of course he would not be the "specialist" face he currently is (sporting +8 Intimidation and Persuasion) or the generalist "Gish" he is now if I did that and throwing fear like it is going out of style.

Which would be better for the party overall? I would argue in that 3-person party having a lights out face with a bit of spell control and a bit of melee is better than having a great tank with no control and relying on our Warlock as the face. I would also argue that having a 2nd character who is "ok" in athletics and one who is ok in acrobatics is better than having one 1 character that is "ok" in athletics (the druid) and one that is good in acrobatics.

Finally in terms of feats vs ASIs I certainly take feats more often. Easily 3-to-1, although most are half feats and a lot of them come at 1st or 4th level in a "planned" upgrade that boosts an odd stat. In the least 7 characters I have played (14th level, 14th level, 7th level, 7th level, 7th level, 8th level, 5th level), I took 2 ASIs and 10 feats, not including 1st level feats.

The feats I took were: Fey touched (3 times), Shadow Touched (2 times), Telepathic (2 times), Tavern Brawler, magic initiate, dragonfear.

 

[lichmaster]

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.