Level Up (A5E) Alternative pointbuy system

[VenerableBede]

@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

I love this resource.
Question: speaking as a guy who stopped taking math classes immediately after high school, how on earth would I adjust the math for the second chart (the zero sum chart) for a 3d6 distribution?
Or, maybe better said, adjust it with the idea that the average would be 10 or 11 across the board rather than 12?

 

[tetrasodium]

I love this resource.
Question: speaking as a guy who stopped taking math classes immediately after high school, how on earth would I adjust the math for the second chart (the zero sum chart) for a 3d6 distribution?
Or, maybe better said, adjust it with the idea that the average would be 10 or 11 across the board rather than 12?

10-11 might be the statistical average but averaging it around 7-8 would probably wind up with a better weighting since the min would have a visceral penalty for the always on max side of a character & very high bonuses would make having +0/+1 in nondump stats that are deprioritized without narrowing the number of good attributes.

 

[rules.mechanic]

I love this resource.
Question: speaking as a guy who stopped taking math classes immediately after high school, how on earth would I adjust the math for the second chart (the zero sum chart) for a 3d6 distribution?
Or, maybe better said, adjust it with the idea that the average would be 10 or 11 across the board rather than 12?

It's relatively straightforward to adjust the zero sum chart for a different balance point. To set the "0" for 11, you just re-write the table adding 1 to all the costs. To set the "0" for 10, you would instead re-write the table adding 3 to all the costs. So you bring the score you want to the "0" point. But it will still have the 4d6-and-drop-the-lowest distribution (graph shape).

I'll do a different one for the 3d6 distribution (it's a more straightforward, and symmetrical, graph shape) that can similarly be adjusted around its natural balance point (statistically 10.5).

 

[rules.mechanic]

(statistically 9.5).

That was careless of me, especially with the correct numbers in the posts from everyone else! Is of course 10.5, will correct in the original to avoid further confusion

 

[Horwath]

High power game is party full of average commoners...

 

[tetrasodium]

High power game is party full of average commoners...

not quite... more than a little above average, for example

• 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

Batman robin green arrow & frank castle (the punisher) might be average compared to superman & wonderwoman, but they are by no means even close to being average common people.

 

[rules.mechanic]

"Zero" sum charts below for the 3d6 distribution, with a 10.5 balance point. That 0.5 is pain, it means I either need a 2 point gap between 10 & 11 (and some BIG score costs):

Score	Cost	Score	Cost
3	-41	11	1
4	-29	12	3
5	-21	13	6
6	-15	14	10
7	-10	15	15
8	-6	16	21
9	-3	17	29
10	-1	18	41

Or I need to use 10 as the cost balance point and set a target sum of 3 (rather than zero) to re-balance at 10.5:

Score	Cost	Score	Cost
3	-21	11	1
4	-15	12	2
5	-11	13	4
6	-8	14	6
7	-5	15	9
8	-3	16	12
9	-1	17	16
10	0	18	22

I'm interested to know which feels easier to use?

Paired Scores are much easier since it's symmetrical for a 3d6 distribution: 3=18, 4=17, ...10=11

 

[tetrasodium]

"Zero" sum charts below for the 3d6 distribution, with a 10.5 balance point. That 0.5 is pain, it means I either need a 2 point gap between 10 & 11 (and some BIG score costs):

Score	Cost	Score	Cost
3	-41	11	1
4	-29	12	3
5	-21	13	6
6	-15	14	10
7	-10	15	15
8	-6	16	21
9	-3	17	29
10	-1	18	41

Or I need to use 10 as the cost balance point and set a target sum of 3 (rather than zero) to re-balance at 10.5:

Score	Cost	Score	Cost
3	-21	11	1
4	-15	12	2
5	-11	13	4
6	-8	14	6
7	-5	15	9
8	-3	16	12
9	-1	17	16
10	0	18	22

I'm interested to know which feels easier to use?

Paired Scores are much easier since it's symmetrical for a 3d6 distribution: 3=18, 4=17, ...10=11

First thing I tried was the elite array & love that the math laughed at me . After that I tried some "what would it look like if I had an x" with some extremes. I did it in excel but human error is possible & GIGO might have produced some results by accident

• Initially I made a mistake & On the second chart balanced for three I got an 18/14/11/10/6/3 that adds up to zero. That makes for a great array for almost any class that isn't too MAD so can have something like +4 primary stat +2 con (or whatever) & a couple +0's (ie dex/wis/cha/str depending on class) plus a pair of deep dump stats with a -2 & -4 that will very much be felt when they come up just as that starting 18 is felt round after round with an early launch into feats aiding it but then I moved on to the other chart & noticed my mistake. That mistake is corrected on everything below (I think)
  • shifting that to a 3 I wound up with an array of 18/14/12/12/6/3
  • shifting that to take advantage of +1/+1 I got 18/13+1/13+1/12/6/3 It feels a bit high since there is a lot of value in being able to balance out just enough lows for jus enough high but it works well
  • for a MAD build I tried a few starting 3x16 arrays like 16/16/16 & 15/15+1/15+1/16 & ran into an interesting problem of not being able to get that to three with 16/15+1/15+1/10/4/4 coming in at a zerowinding up with a 3 point underspend that feels great
  • For an extreme generalist I came up with 15+1/15+1/15/15/4/3 and it feels awesome even coming in at 0 rather than 3
• Using those same numbers in the first chart I got
  • the elite array is a big no here too huzza!
  • 18/14/12/12/6/3 came in at +1 cost but shifting to 18/14/12/11+1/6/3+1 a -1. I think it's interesting & that players would squeal in glee at either array so no concern here
  • 18/13+1/13+1/12/6/3 came in at 0 making it an interesting question of if the prior 18/14x/x/x array that underspends, is the prior starting 18/14/12/12/6/4 n\better or worse than this 18/14/14/12/6/3 better or worse for this character I love this
  • 15+1/15+1/15/15/4/3 came up with a fascinating -10 point underspend. Replacing one of the 15's with a 16 drops it to a 4 pointunderspend -4. That's a lot of good generalist (or extreme multiclass) scores for a really interesting character paired off against those big deficits.

TL;DR: I really like these & love some of the interesting choices that come up with trading off underspending vrs less perfect stats that spend more

edit: I don't know which one is easier, but in my limited testing it seemed easier to remember that a cost of zero or less was the goal with the first one while the second one (possibly coincidentally)seemed to have a lot of arrays coming up at 3 or zero while the first was all over when under cost so might be easier to target.

 

[rules.mechanic]

Thanks, that's really helpful stress-testing and feedback. I had a long-time character with 3d6 rolled straight down the line of stats - had a 17 and a 3 (neither in a key stat) and there were lots of opportunities to bring both into the role-playing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Thanks, that's really helpful stress-testing and feedback. I had a long-time character with 3d6 rolled straight down the line of stats - had a 17 and a 3 (neither in a key stat) and there were lots of opportunities to bring both into the role-playing.

I made this when I was fooling with it, the xlsx file might be useful if you don't already have something like it, if you do it might be useful to someone else . costs are pulled from the arrays sheet based on the numbers 3-18 entered in the blue boxes