Level Up (A5E) Alternative pointbuy system

[lichmaster]

"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

For the table above, it seems again that the easiest thing to do is to keep the sum of the modifiers fixed at a value. Here that value is a zero, of course*. So you buy a +1 somewhere with a -1 somewhere else.
In the table below the costs are asymmetrical and the bare minimum cost for a +1 is higher than the bare minimum gain for a -1 (12 costs 2 but 9 only gives you 1), and so on. This is subtle but quite reduces the legit combinations, so the system is less flexible than the one above.

*The general rule is: you take the modified associated to the score resulting from the average roll of whatever rolling method you have, and multiply it by 6 (3d6 give an average modifier of +0, best 3 of 4d6 give an average modifier of +1).

I personally would not allow dump stats below a 6, and no player I know would play a character with a dump stat lower than that.

 

[rules.mechanic]

For the table above, it seems again that the easiest thing to do is to keep the sum of the modifiers fixed at a value. Here that value is a zero, of course*. So you buy a +1 somewhere with a -1 somewhere else.
In the table below the costs are asymmetrical and the bare minimum cost for a +1 is higher than the bare minimum gain for a -1 (12 costs 2 but 9 only gives you 1), and so on. This is subtle but quite reduces the legit combinations, so the system is less flexible than the one above.

*The general rule is: you take the modified associated to the score resulting from the average roll of whatever rolling method you have, and multiply it by 6 (3d6 give an average modifier of +0, best 3 of 4d6 give an average modifier of +1).

I personally would not allow dump stats below a 6, and no player I know would play a character with a dump stat lower than that.

Yeah, that's why I'm less keen on the second table - it doesn't look symmetrical because the sum-of-3 isn't intuitive. The only way to make it symmetrical around 10.5 is to have a 2 point gap between 10 & 11, which scales all the other costs up to around double and generates the first table.

For the permissible range, you can set that at whatever you want and don't need to change the costs (that's the advantage of the sum-of-zero approach). 6-16 already gives you considerable flexibility over the standard arrays and you need to be a bit careful if you allow wider than that.

PS If you do choose a fixed range, such as 6-16, you can covert this to a more traditional points buy. Simply start at 0 cost for your lowest permissable score, adjust the other costs by the same amount, and allow a points pool that would buy 3x10 and 3x11 (if using a 3d6 with a 10.5 balance point). For this, you can use the second table to have simpler numbers (no-one can see the asymmetry any more)

 

[lichmaster]

Yeah, that's why I'm less keen on the second table - it doesn't look symmetrical because the sum-of-3 isn't intuitive. The only way to make it symmetrical around 10.5 is to have a 2 point gap between 10 & 11, which scales all the other costs up to around double and generates the first table.

For the permissible range, you can set that at whatever you want and don't need to change the costs (that's the advantage of the sum-of-zero approach). 6-16 already gives you considerable flexibility over the standard arrays and you need to be a bit careful if you allow wider than that.

PS If you do choose a fixed range, such as 6-16, you can covert this to a more traditional points buy. Simply start at 0 cost for your lowest permissable score, adjust the other costs by the same amount, and allow a points pool that would buy 3x10 and 3x11 (if using a 3d6 with a 10.5 balance point). For this, you can use the second table to have simpler numbers (no-one can see the asymmetry any more)

If I were to use something different to the standard array (my players are happy with it), I'd stick with just buying the modifiers, no need for tables. I would restrict the modifiers range to +3/-3 but would be relatively generous with the sum of the multipliers (probably +4 to +6).

 

[Horwath]

If I were to use something different to the standard array (my players are happy with it), I'd stick with just buying the modifiers, no need for tables. I would restrict the modifiers range to +3/-3 but would be relatively generous with the sum of the multipliers (probably +4 to +6).

5.5E should just have ability modifiers.

standard array could be +3, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1. No racial bonuses at all. They are floating bonuses now, might as well remove them and merge them into point buy/default array.

point buy:

modifier; -3 : cost; -3 (optional, would not recommend for standard game)
modifier; -2 : cost; -1 (optional, would not recommend for standard game)
modifier; -1 : cost; 0
modifier; +0 : cost; 1
modifier; +1 : cost; 2
modifier; +2 : cost; 3
modifier; +3 : cost; 5
modifier; +4 : cost; 8 (optional, would not recommend for standard game)
modifier; +5 : cost; 12 (optional, would not recommend for standard game)

point buy pool: 16

 

[le Redoutable]

for those who love to roll dice:
first we have d6T :
a d6T uses 3,3,3,4,5,6 in lieu of 1,2,3,4,5,6 so it averages 4 and not 3.5

then you roll dice;
standart point buy was 25 points as I recall
so, because average is 4, plus 25 x 4 = 100, target sum of your dice rolled is 100 ( for a 25 point buy )
so roll, roll, roll until you achieve 100 ( min dice rolled if only 6's is 17 ( for a total of 102 ) , while max dice rolled is 34 ( if only 3's ) )

 

[lichmaster]

5.5E should just have ability modifiers.

standard array could be +3, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1. No racial bonuses at all. They are floating bonuses now, might as well remove them and merge them into point buy/default array.

I largely agree with you, as except for some very minor details ability scores never come up while playing.
They probably must stay there for legacy compatibility issue, because that's what makes it D&D for a lot of people.

One thought I had while tinkering with this, and contemplating the utter uselessness of odd scores, is that one could have some minor bonus associated with those odd scores, to differentiate a 9 from an 8. Something like WOIN's traits for the lowest or highest score, something that's distinctive and different from a flat modifier.

 

[Horwath]

I largely agree with you, as except for some very minor details ability scores never come up while playing.
They probably must stay there for legacy compatibility issue, because that's what makes it D&D for a lot of people.

One thought I had while tinkering with this, and contemplating the utter uselessness of odd scores, is that one could have some minor bonus associated with those odd scores, to differentiate a 9 from an 8. Something like WOIN's traits for the lowest or highest score, something that's distinctive and different from a flat modifier.

or we could have that every point of ability score is a point of modifier.

9: -1, 10: +0, 11: +1, 12: +2, etc...

that way really small creatures that now have STR 1 with -5 mod, would have STR 1 with mod of -9. That would describe difference is STR a lot better.