NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6494673" data-attributes="member: 22424">Yep, nothing wrong with offering several arrays.Not keen on this. It seems to be the worst of both worlds: those players who like randomness don't really get it, while those players who don't like it seem to be stuck with it. I'd recommend simply offering the arrays, and leave it at that.There are a few ways you could expand the table.One way is to note that at each step the increase in cost is equal to the modifier granted (minimum 1). So a 16 (+3) should cost 3 more points than a 15, and so on. This gives 16 = 12 points, 17 = 15 points, 18 = 19 points.Another is to note that 5e actually uses all the same costs as 4e, corrected for the fact that 4e starts most of your stats at 10. Under that system, it makes sense to use the same costs as 4e for the remaining stats: 16 = 11 points, 17 = 14 points, 18 = 18 points. (I have no idea where 4e got those numbers from.)I wouldn't recommend expanding the table downwards, because any player happy to take an 8 in a dump stat will likely leap on the option to further dump it to 6 in order to squeeze another point or so for his best scores.(FWIW: I actually throw out the point-buy table entirely, and instead use the method from the 3e PHB. Mostly because I know how that works, and also how it balances up against both the array and the rolling method that we use.)That sounds like quite an assumption - have WotC ever actually come out and said why they set up the system as they did? From where I'm sitting, it looks entirely possible they just grabbed the 4e numbers as being "good enough".Eh. Plenty of groups like to have the option of buying up the stats to the highest possible level, even with the opportunity costs elsewhere. Since WotC clearly didn't think having a 17 or 18 would break the game (or they wouldn't allow rolling), I don't see why it's a huge problem for them to expand the table as they see fit.</blockquote>

Verification