D&D 5E The Philosophy Behind Randomized and Standardized Ability Scores

[Thunder Brother]

Didn’t KotOR use point buy though?

Exactly, and I greatly prefer point buy when running games. I think I could have made that more clear.

 

[Voadam]

I played in a 2e AD&D game where I had a fighter with a 17 strength and another PC had a fighter with an 18 percentile strength. It was noticeable that our characters were mechanically basically the same, but his was just better, with a bonus to hit and a significantly bigger bonus to damage on every attack. This was frustrating to constantly be doing your main thing a little bit worse than someone else.

The fact that he was playing an evil jerk in a game where PCs could be adversarial and kill each other made the situation even worse.

I was a big fan of the 2e player's option rules for splitting and adjusting stats so that most fighters could go from a 14 strength to an 18 for combat mechanics purposes which was generally enough to get everyone on a much more level playing field.

 

[Voadam]

random rolls worked well back in 1e&2e,

Hard disagree.

but not since 3.5 and there are reasons related to the historical system mechanics for that. Without those differences they cause problems. It worked till 2e because of system differences & failed different in 3.x again because of differences. 5e is different from both & is unable to make use of the ways it could work or kinda work that those earlier editions enjoyed

Prior to 3.x (1e/2e) A +1 started around a 15 in an ability while -1 started around a six in an ability giving a nine point dead zone of +/-0 that was likely to contain nearly every ability score roll. The different abilities would add a small bonus or penalty to specific things even within that dead zone, but in general it was a very minor thing. Rolling ability scores itroduced some random near ribbon flavoring to characters as a result of this dead zone that no longer exists.

AD&D's reverse bell curve on stat bonuses made getting high stats much more impactful. Percentile strength was huge, int or wisdom could determine maximum spell levels for casters, and lots of classes had tough stat prereqs.

In B/X it was not nearly as much of a big deal and lower stat characters were not nearly as far behind the curve. A 13-15 got you a +1 and the bonuses tapped out at +3 for 18s. In AD&D a 13 would get you a +0 and an 18 strength could get you as high as +3 to hit and +6 on damage, Dex 18 would get you +4 to AC, and an 18 Con would get you +4 hp per level (for fighters). B/X int and wis did not give spellcasters bonus spells (the way they did for clerics in AD&D) or limit spellcasting with lower scores. In B/X the system encouraged roll and go much more than AD&D which rewarded specific builds matching with stats to a noticeably bigger extent.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly, and I greatly prefer point buy when running games. I think I could have made that more clear.

Gotcha. Makes sense.

 

[Oofta]

Hard disagree.



AD&D's reverse bell curve on stat bonuses made getting high stats much more impactful. Percentile strength was huge, int or wisdom could determine maximum spell levels for casters, and lots of classes had tough stat prereqs.

In B/X it was not nearly as much of a big deal and lower stat characters were not nearly as far behind the curve. A 13-15 got you a +1 and the bonuses tapped out at +3 for 18s. In AD&D a 13 would get you a +0 and an 18 strength could get you as high as +3 to hit and +6 on damage, Dex 18 would get you +4 to AC, and an 18 Con would get you +4 hp per level (for fighters). B/X int and wis did not give spellcasters bonus spells (the way they did for clerics in AD&D) or limit spellcasting with lower scores. In B/X the system encouraged roll and go much more than AD&D which rewarded specific builds matching with stats to a noticeably bigger extent.

Stats still matter in 5E, even if not as much. Roll really well and you can hit 10-15% more often while having more HP, likely better initiative and capabilities out of combat. Plus you have a lot more options to play MAD classes and multi-class.

Using point buy I don't always max out my primary abilities, but I'm probably only 2-3 points behind someone who does and I have the option for a more balanced character or multiple focuses.

So I hard disagree your "hard disagree".

 

[Lanefan]

What I can't wrap my head around is automatic ASI ever so often in 5E, as well as the expectation that by level X, you are "supposed" to have 20 in your main stat.
I much prefer the way games like Mythras handle stats, where your starting stats are your body's absolute achievable prime.
If I ever DM 5E again, I'll completely excise ASI.

I don't mind stats slowly getting better as levels advance. What I don't like is the automatic part, where the stat predictably goes up at a certain level.

The 1e percentile-increment system they used for Cavaliers is the best I've seen so far for this, except expanded to all classes. Been using it for decades.

 

[Krachek]

Colville rolled 4d6 drop lowest and at least two 15s.

Nice try, but math don’t cheat, if you don’t put a minimum you will eventually roll the two 15+ and a bunch of 3. It may not happen at your table but a world wide used method will get it.

 

[Lanefan]

There is one big advantage of point buy/array. DM does not have to be with schedule "rolling sessions" or listen to whining about low scores and options of re-rolling if X amount is too low or Y amount is too high.

Players can make their characters in peace.

And then chuck 'em out and make them again when I can watch.

It's not just stats that get rolled for round here.

Besides, roll-up night is usually a lot of fun.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hard disagree.



AD&D's reverse bell curve on stat bonuses made getting high stats much more impactful. Percentile strength was huge, int or wisdom could determine maximum spell levels for casters, and lots of classes had tough stat prereqs.

In B/X it was not nearly as much of a big deal and lower stat characters were not nearly as far behind the curve. A 13-15 got you a +1 and the bonuses tapped out at +3 for 18s. In AD&D a 13 would get you a +0 and an 18 strength could get you as high as +3 to hit and +6 on damage, Dex 18 would get you +4 to AC, and an 18 Con would get you +4 hp per level (for fighters). B/X int and wis did not give spellcasters bonus spells (the way they did for clerics in AD&D) or limit spellcasting with lower scores. In B/X the system encouraged roll and go much more than AD&D which rewarded specific builds matching with stats to a noticeably bigger extent.

Percentile strength was almost a secondary system that doesn't really have a good analog since then. For purposes of the +1/-1 +2/-2 etc that the attributes have functioned as since 3.x the tightening of the dead zone has consistently made stats matter much more to the point of pushing ultra min max stat arrangements. A simple sidebar thst covers going back to a wider dead zone would undo that pressure.

It's also notable that percentile strength was only a thing for strength. Yea the other attributes influenced things based on charts but there wasn't a secondary d100 roll you put beside the other five stats like strength

 

[reelo]

I don't mind stats slowly getting better as levels advance. What I don't like is the automatic part, where the stat predictably goes up at a certain level.

The 1e percentile-increment system they used for Cavaliers is the best I've seen so far for this, except expanded to all classes. Been using it for decades.

I like how The Black Hack does it: you roll 1d20 and if the result is ABOVE your current stat, it goes up by 1 point. That way it gets harder the higher your stat already is.