How much ability score variation is too much?

[FireLance]

Recently, I've started thinking seriously again about an ability score generation system that I've considered in the past, which is essentially 3d6 with safety nets.

First, you assign your safety nets by generating ability scores using a standard array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 - this works out to the usual 22 point buy in 4E.

Then, you roll 3d6 for each ability score, and if the assigned number is lower than the result of the dice roll, it is replaced by the rolled number.

This system provides some scope for randomness, quirky characters and better than expected ability scores - a fighter with a 16 Intelligence, for example - while ensuring that every character meets the minimum viability qualifications.

The downside to this approach is that you get greater variation in character ability. Assuming the player assigns the 16 to his PC's primary ability score and the 14 to the secondary, there is a 4 in 216 chance that he will end up with a slightly better (17 or 18) primary ability score and a 20 in 216 chance that he will improve his secondary (15, 16, 17 or 18). A more likely outcome is that the PC would get a random boost (possibly up to +4, but +1 or +2 is more likely) to a weak non-AC defence.

What I'd like to get your gut-level reaction on is: do you think your 4E game can handle this potential variation in PC ability scores fairly easily?

 

[Grydan]

Could my 4E game handle it? No.

I don't care for rolled stats, regardless of how many safety nets you put in place. I'm also not a fan of the standard array, as it fails to account for the fact that some classes place much more weight on their secondary stats than others.

I don't like them as a player, and I don't like them as a DM.

Both as a DM and a player, I much prefer point buy. It keeps the playing field level. If I want to play a quirky character, then it's my choice, not the result of random dice. If I don't want to play a quirky character, then I don't have to.

A player who does want a character whose attributes are a surprise to them can achieve that in multiple ways, without forcing everyone else to do so as well.

Is this something that your players have asked for, or just something that appeals to your own sensibilities?

---

An alternate, simpler system for generating quirky characters with surprising, unplanned aspects. Roll a d6 to determine which of your abilities will be the third highest. That way, you can ensure that your primary and secondary stats are covered adequately, while still having the potential for an unusually intelligent fighter, wise rogue, or strong wizard. If the d6 result indicates your primary or secondary ability score, consider overemphasizing it (making your primary 18, or making your secondary equal to or greater than your primary), reroll, or take it as a sign your character isn't quirky in terms of ability scores.

 

[Mengu]

Probability distributions aside, luck is hard to compensate for. These stats will be with the characters for their entire career. The main question is, if you believe luck should play a role in one character being better than another for the entire duration of a campaign.

So say, one player wants to play a tiefling rogue, and another is playing a half-orc barbarian. The tiefling rogue puts Str 12, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 14. After rolls, his Int ends up a 13, and he keeps everything else the same. The half-orc barbarian starts with Str 16, Con 13, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 11, and rolls an 18 for his Dex, and a 15 for his Cha. Suddenly the half-orc barbarian has better acrobatics skills than the rogue, better AC and reflex, better thievery if he picks it up, and access to better feats with higher stat requirements.

If your players are casual and used to such imbalances from earlier games or other systems, it's probably fine, but for a math savvy 4e player who immediately sees the advantages of one character over another, it's hard not to feel jilted a bit.

These are not rolls that will happen frequently through a campaign (at least not my campaigns where we tend to keep the same character around for years). So my answer to "do you think your 4E game can handle this potential variation in PC ability scores fairly easily?" would be a no.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think 4E is the worst edition thus far for random ability rolls, even with safety newts.

That said, it can work, but if people are not gonna have 18s in ability scores at 1st level, they probably need an inherent ability boost.

I am usually one to say that lower ability scores are not that important, and a 16 to start off is not that bad, but less than that would be too much.

Later editions of D&D are just too ability score dependent for much rolling IME.

Yours may vary.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Agreed with the above. Random ability scores simply aren't my cup of tea. The game balance is too dependent on them.