D&D 5E modified ability score calculation

[squibbles]

Hello, I'm a new poster. I would appreciate any and all feedback.

I am considering trying out a method of ability score generation that I have not used before.

Instead of using 5e's standard array, using 4d6 drop the lowest, or using 3d6 in order (god forbid), I intend to use a group-based ability score generation method.

In summary:
Step 1: Each player rolls 3d6 in order.
Step 2: The players swap the ability score arrays that they have rolled, based on what type of PC they want to play (i.e. if you rolled an awesome Int score but don't want to play a Wizard, swap your array with the player who DOES want to play a wizard)
Step 3: The DM rolls 3d6 once per player--each of the DM's rolls can be swapped with any PC's ability score roll.
Step 4: The players, as a group, decide which PCs get to swap ability score rolls with the DM's rolls: One PC can swap ability scores with all of the DM's rolls, each PC can swap one ability score with a score that the DM rolled, every PC can keep his/her own rolls, or the players can choose any permutation in between; it is entirely up to them.

Justification:
This method should lead to balance within the party while also generating PCs with novel ability scores. The 1st and 2nd step should give each player a PC that has, more or less, what they need to play their class (and some bizarre random ability scores besides). The 3rd and 4th step should, then, compensate the players who ended up with the weaker PCs.

My presumption is that players, if given the choice, will be fair. Anybody who accepts a weak PC in the 2nd step will be compensated in the 4th step. But, alternately, if the players decide to give one PC a gratuitously strong set of ability scores, that's cool too; it's their call.

For the more experienced DMs out there: Do you think this method will generate a more balanced party? And, do you think this method will generate more varied PCs?

Thanks in advance,
Squibbles.

 

[5ekyu]

i would suggest that in step 3 instead of rolling the Gm gets a set score or set pattern of scores. it just does not make sense for me for the final "safety net" fill-in for the first stages could turn out to be just all 9s. i would consider 10 10 10 12 12 12 or all 12s or 14s or even the standard array but some static pattern - after all it is your catch-up extra set. Why leave it to possibly be mostly negative or jackpots?

I like the collaborative aspects of this, but not so fond of the random myself.

but as an alternative, you could set it up auction style, stealing from amber...

give each character baseline 8 in all stats and 30 points to bid and make a rule that no two PCs can have the same score in a stat.

roll 1d6 for random stat to be determined (say CHA) and start bidding at 8. keep bidding until the highest CHA is determined and at that point everybody has their cha set.
The winner chooses the next stat to be bid on.
lather rinse repeat until all six stats are done.
if someone happened to end with points left over, they lose them.

one key element of this is that you wont be seeing all even score stats at the beginning as there can only be one 12, one 14 one 16 for each stat. so even when folks are pre-figuring their own stats up they have to allow for possible competition for that spot. or they could collaborate.

 

[Blue]

If multiple players want the same set (say a rogue and a archer ranger), who gets it?

Also, if someone rolls a real stinker of a set, someone is going to be stuck with playing it. I'd suggest a "stillborn" limit, say if the needs at least a net +3 AND at least one 14+.

Finally, 5e has a Faustian choice of ASI or feats. With 3d6 the rolls are going to be significantly lower even with the small boost from the DM dice, making ASIs much more attractive - but as always a pure math adjustment is somewhat boring.. You may want to offset that. My suggestions would be ONE of:

• Give a free feat at character creation, but they must take a half-feat (one that raises an ability score). Use only standard humans, not variants, with this.
• Make ASIs give +2/+1, +1/+1/+1 OR a feat and +1.

 

[squibbles]

i would suggest that in step 3 instead of rolling the Gm gets a set score or set pattern of scores. it just does not make sense for me for the final "safety net" fill-in for the first stages could turn out to be just all 9s. i would consider 10 10 10 12 12 12 or all 12s or 14s or even the standard array but some static pattern - after all it is your catch-up extra set. Why leave it to possibly be mostly negative or jackpots?

Thanks for the suggestion!

That's a good point. I had imagined that the negotiations in stage 2 would be premised on some amount of uncertainty in stage 3. But, if stage 3 goes poorly, it's plausible that some of the PCs, even if they traded ability scores with the DM in stage 4, would be at a severe disadvantage.

That's not great.

Maybe some of the DM scores would be preset, but others would be random: something like 10, 10, 12, 12, ?, ?

What do you think?

 

[squibbles]

If multiple players want the same set (say a rogue and a archer ranger), who gets it?

Whoever the players agree should have it. Some amount of camaraderie and good faith negotiation is presupposed.

Also, if someone rolls a real stinker of a set, someone is going to be stuck with playing it. I'd suggest a "stillborn" limit, say if the needs at least a net +3 AND at least one 14+.

That's a good idea. Maybe players get a re-roll if their net ability modifiers turn out negative.

Finally, 5e has a Faustian choice of ASI or feats. With 3d6 the rolls are going to be significantly lower even with the small boost from the DM dice, making ASIs much more attractive - but as always a pure math adjustment is somewhat boring.. You may want to offset that. My suggestions would be ONE of:

• Give a free feat at character creation, but they must take a half-feat (one that raises an ability score). Use only standard humans, not variants, with this.
• Make ASIs give +2/+1, +1/+1/+1 OR a feat and +1.

Again, those are good ideas.

However, I dislike PCs taking feats in mid-game without a plot justification. Thus, I just give them a free feat on char generation, and expect them to get their other feats (if any) from rp.

I intend for all of the ASIs (as you say) to be boring math adjustments.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Common hurdle for group-based ability score generation like this:

What do you do if a player rolls a new character, or a new player enters the group?

 

[delericho]

Whoever the players agree should have it. Some amount of camaraderie and good faith negotiation is presupposed.

Don't discount the possibility that behind-the-scenes drama may lead to one player being penalised by the others. Or, indeed, the others deciding to dump one of their number with bad stats as a prank.

 

[delericho]

In summary:
Step 1: Each player rolls 3d6 in order.
Step 2: The players swap the ability score arrays that they have rolled, based on what type of PC they want to play (i.e. if you rolled an awesome Int score but don't want to play a Wizard, swap your array with the player who DOES want to play a wizard)
Step 3: The DM rolls 3d6 once per player--each of the DM's rolls can be swapped with any PC's ability score roll.
Step 4: The players, as a group, decide which PCs get to swap ability score rolls with the DM's rolls: One PC can swap ability scores with all of the DM's rolls, each PC can swap one ability score with a score that the DM rolled, every PC can keep his/her own rolls, or the players can choose any permutation in between; it is entirely up to them.

For the more experienced DMs out there: Do you think this method will generate a more balanced party? And, do you think this method will generate more varied PCs?

I'd offer it to your players and see what they think. If they're happy with it, go for it. If not, it's not going to work well.

Personally, I wouldn't go with something like this - 3d6-in-order is a good bit weaker than I would consider, and the various tweaks you make to it don't look like they'll make much difference to that.

(One other thing: over the years I've gone through a lot of ability score generation methods, and I never found one I was completely happy with. Random rolls invariably seemed to leave an imbalance between "lucky" players and those the rest of the party, while point-buy systems seemed to constantly throw up the same builds. Ultimately, my conclusion was that it wasn't worth trying to find a perfect system, since there isn't one - what's more important is to find one that leaves the players with characters they're happy to play long-term. Good luck!)

 

[Blue]

Whoever the players agree should have it. Some amount of camaraderie and good faith negotiation is presupposed.

My concern would be that even if there is some give-and-take among the players you have low-level but long term resentment that builds up.

And it doesn't even need to be competing for the same ability score. If there's a set with an 18 DEX and 16 INT, and no other sets with good INT, the player wanting to play a wizard will either be stealing a great score that the rogue/finesse fighter/archer wants, or give up the plan of playing a Wizard and instead go for a different option.

Some groups are perfectly fine with that. The organic rolling in order not only leads to unusual distributions of ability scores but also unusual selection of characters - and that's part of the fun. It sounds like that might be a good description of your table. Others go in with ideas and will be bummed if they can't realize them, especially if they have to give up their concepts so that others can do their own.

Back in AD&D 2nd, we rolled in order to create characters without the ability to swap like you are suggesting. But what the DM did was each player rolled three sets of stats and picked which one they wanted.

 

[5ekyu]

Thanks for the suggestion!

That's a good point. I had imagined that the negotiations in stage 2 would be premised on some amount of uncertainty in stage 3. But, if stage 3 goes poorly, it's plausible that some of the PCs, even if they traded ability scores with the DM in stage 4, would be at a severe disadvantage.

That's not great.

Maybe some of the DM scores would be preset, but others would be random: something like 10, 10, 12, 12, ?, ?

What do you think?

Well, i think you should work in as many random stats as you feel are needed or preferable, but for me i personally do not like *any* random stats as opposed to chosen stats so that brings me back to the idea that for this approach the safety net should be set for minimal standards and not a full wild random swing 3-18 at all for any of them. But i can say that since i see no value in random stats for PCs, that does prevent me from seeing the value in random stats in the safety net for PC random stats as well, so it is a matter if bias/preference.

If i were in chargen in such a play - i might very well focus on a single attribute character with just moderate rolls for other stats and then be willing to trade off my highest stats for other considerations like say "Ok so fine i will take that 12 and give you my 15 but i get 1/3 of your character's share of treasure going forward."