Level Up (A5E) Alternative pointbuy system

[tetrasodium]

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.

 

[lichmaster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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).