D&D 5E How do you avoid overshadowing while applying ability scores as rolled?

[DND_Reborn]

I was surprised to see a 15 (on the Forest Gnome Wizard) as a hypergeometric distribution made that look like a 1-2% chance. I've probably made some errors... the fidelity is good-enough for my purposes! One thing I felt particularly satisfied with is that with luck and focus a character could work towards a 20 stat... but they would have to make trade-offs to get it and I think it would feel genuinely exceptional. I also much prefer where the base range (6-15) falls against MM creatures (e.g. Giant strength scores!)

I get your desire for the range compared to MM creatures, but this system has most character have a sum of -1 to +1 in ability modifiers. I suppose if at session 0 everyone is cool with that, kudos.

Anyway, here is the spreadsheet (attached zip file below). I went with a slightly better array, averaging 11's instead of 10.5. It generates slightly better scores, but not crazy at all.

You can adjust the array to generate better or worse scores. It generates three sets, with scores 14 or 15 highlighted in green and 6 or 7 in red. You can add race modifiers and it calculates total score and modifier based on the set and race.

If you like it but want some changes made and need help, let me know.

 

[clearstream]

I get your desire for the range compared to MM creatures, but this system has most character have a sum of -1 to +1 in ability modifiers. I suppose if at session 0 everyone is cool with that, kudos.

Anyway, here is the spreadsheet (attached zip file below). I went with a slightly better array, averaging 11's instead of 10.5. It generates slightly better scores, but not crazy at all.

...

You can adjust the array to generate better or worse scores. It generates three sets, with scores 14 or 15 highlighted in green and 6 or 7 in red. You can add race modifiers and it calculates total score and modifier based on the set and race.

If you like it but want some changes made and need help, let me know.

Nice! I reverted the array, tweaked points to use a vlookup (comes out the same, but I find it clearer), and added three more characters. Speaking to your doubt about the ability modifiers, I think this is correctly assessed after thinking about likely class and race. For example the attached...

You can see that after race, five out of six either have a +3 or sum to +3, while the last (set 3) looks to benefit strongly from an early ASI split over her two key stats. I think the "tax" she will pay is well compensated by her best numbers falling all upon abilities most relevant to her class.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nice! I reverted the array, tweaked points to use a vlookup (comes out the same, but I find it clearer), and added three more characters. Speaking to your doubt about the ability modifiers, I think this is correctly assessed after thinking about likely class and race. For example the attached...

View attachment 113625

You can see that after race, five out of six either have a +3 or sum to +3, while the last (set 3) looks to benefit strongly from an early ASI split over her two key stats. I think the "tax" she will pay is well compensated by her best numbers falling all upon abilities most relevant to her class.

Great! When you factor in race, you will get a +1 or +2 boost to the overall modifier total. I still find it slightly low with your array, but with six options to choose from I am sure even I would get a set I could work with and have fun. I see much of the time you have races that play to the strengths of set of stats, so that helps as well.

It will be interesting to find out how it works for your table. My only caution with doing something like this is players often choose race to boost the already good scores, making them even better. I thought I read you are doing random race, or am I mistaken?

 

[clearstream]

...with six options to choose from I am sure even I would get a set I could work with and have fun. I see much of the time you have races that play to the strengths of set of stats, so that helps as well.

Players will generate only one character. I expect you would find yourself crestfallen (I wanted to generate six at a time just to speed up my own analysis and pre-play balancing.)

It will be interesting to find out how it works for your table. My only caution with doing something like this is players often choose race to boost the already good scores, making them even better. I thought I read you are doing random race, or am I mistaken?

Players will choose race (i.e. not random) after generating their (one) set of scores, and before choosing class and background. ASIs are anticipated to further boost their abilities. I find that the bulk of play in 5e happens between levels 4 and 12 or so, with levels 1-3 passing quite fast.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Players will generate only one character. I expect you would find yourself crestfallen (I wanted to generate six at a time just to speed up my own analysis and pre-play balancing.)

Indeed. Indeed I am.

As a player, I prefer options. If I can't have options in arranging my scores to taste, having a few sets to choose from alleviates that. (Hence my initial suggestion of 3 sets).

Players will choose race (i.e. not random) after generating their (one) set of scores, and before choosing class and background. ASIs are anticipated to further boost their abilities. I find that the bulk of play in 5e happens between levels 4 and 12 or so, with levels 1-3 passing quite fast.

Choosing race is fine, but given the nature of your idea I would be okay with random as well.

Are you using feats? IME if feats are available, very few ASIs are used to just boost abilities. If anything, they go up as a side-effect of the feats due to the +1 often available as part of the feat.

 

[clearstream]

Are you using feats? IME if feats are available, very few ASIs are used to just boost abilities. If anything, they go up as a side-effect of the feats due to the +1 often available as part of the feat.

I am using feats, and it is true that many feats are better than ASIs. In my survey of feats, about 64% of ASIs were spent on feats by those who used both (239 picks across 27 respondents). That matches my experience in my personal campaign (13 characters, highest reaching level 16). Thus I confidently expect most characters to spend at least one ASI to boost ability scores.

I currently feel like choice of race is quite important to allow... but now that you mention it, perhaps not. To test that would require creating a table of races/sub-races with their ability bonuses, and randomly pulling from that. Do you feel like making a second macro to do that?

[EDITED to correct % of ASIs spent on feats: about a third were spent on ability scores.]

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am using feats, and it is true that many feats are better than ASIs. In my survey of feats, about 74% of ASIs were spent on feats by those who used both (239 picks across 27 respondents). That matches my experience in my personal campaign (13 characters, highest reaching level 16). Thus I confidently expect most characters to spend at least one ASI to boost ability scores.

Okay. Personally, I don't think the primary ability needs to be maxed out, even at higher levels, so I am totally on board. IMO 18s and 20s are great, but 14s and 16s keeps things more challenging.

It will be interesting to hear how it plays out. Enjoy and its been fun!