Variant Ability Score Generation Method

[RPG_Tweaker]

I'm considering a variant ability score generation method for a mini-campaign, and as math isn't my strongpoint, I'm hoping for a critique from the resident brainiacs.

1.) From the six abilities, choose three primary and three secondary abilities.
• For each primary ability, roll 1d6+12, creating a range of 13 to 18 with an average of 15.5
• For each secondary ability, roll 2d4+8 [Edit: 1d10+8], creating a range of 9 to 18 with an average of 13.5

2.) Distribute 2 additional points to any (one or two) of your scores. No score may exeed 18.

3.) Add any ability score modifers for your race. Scores may exeed 18.

My goal is to create heroic-level attributes with some randomness, but remove the bother of "unacceptable" lesser ranges (requiring a bunch of re-rolls). Additionally, it should create more organic characters by reducing dump-stats.



It should also be noted, that in this campaign, I'm considering a change to the accessability of spell levels:

To cast a spell, a magic-using class only needs a governing ability score of 13 or better; there is no restriction to the maximum spell level a caster may employ based on their ability score.

Thus, you don't need a 19 INT to cast 9th level Wizard spells. though it's still better to have a higher score for bonus spells and spell DCs.


Your thoughts?

 

[Blackrat]

The method sounds good. It gives pretty high scores but I guess that was the point. I don't know about the accessability of spells though. Is there a specific reason for this? I have always found it good to have that restriction.

 

[Meeki]

The only problem with the 2d4 + 8 is the probabilities of getting numbers. Most of your scores will be 12-14 since each 12, 13, 14 have a 20% chance of occuring. Not that its a big deal but I wasn't sure if you wanted to give each score of 10-16 an equal probability or not.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

I don't know about the accessability of spells though. Is there a specific reason for this? I have always found it good to have that restriction.

A fighter's optimal ability scores are STR, DEX, and CON. He benefits greatly for having high numbers in these, but he's not penalized for being average. This similarily applies to the other classes... except spellcasters, who are actually hamstrung for being less than optimum.

A fighter would prefer an 18 STR, but is perfectly viable with a 13 STR. The same would apply to DEX for a rogue. A Wizard however, MUST HAVE a 19 INT to access their 9th level class powers. This to me is unacceptable, as there already is a limitation to casting 9th level spells... you have to be 17th level!

I realize the logic that probably went behind the restriction (more brainiac power to activate more complex magic), but it seems much more reasonable to assume that at 17th level, they are extremely skilled in their profession (same goes for clerics, druids, etc.). Compared to that, the additional barrier of a minimum ability score to use their primary vocation seems quite arbitrary.

Additionally, this works well with the organic dice method. As long as primary casters make their spell-governing attribute a primary roll, no matter the roll, they can cast the appropriate spells. Secondary casters, like the paladin and ranger, usually need their higher rolls elswhere; this way they can declare their spell-governing ability as secondary and still bring a low score up through the initial bonus points or leveling bonuses.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

The only problem with the 2d4 + 8 is the probabilities of getting numbers. Most of your scores will be 12-14 since each 12, 13, 14 have a 20% chance of occuring. Not that its a big deal but I wasn't sure if you wanted to give each score of 10-16 an equal probability or not.

Oooops.

I just realized I goofed. I didn't want to limit the secondary ability scores to a maximum of 16.

Secondary ability scores should've been 1d10+8

 

[Arkhandus]

Well, a dedicated magic-user only really needs a starting score of 15 in their spellcasting stat, though. They can make it 19 by their 16th-level through normal advancement ability increases. And it won't slow their access to new spell levels that way.

Perhaps set the initial scores in 3 tiers? 1 primary score, 2 secondary scores, and 3 tertiary scores? Primary score could be determined with 1d4+14, secondary scores with 1d6+12, and tertiary scores with 1d10+8. So.... primary of 15-18, avg. 16.5, secondary of 13-18, avg. 15.5, tertiary of 9-18, avg. 13.5.

Or primary 1d4+14, secondary 1d8+10, tertiary 1d12+6. Avg. 16.5, 14.5, and 12.5.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Well, a dedicated magic-user only really needs a starting score of 15 in their spellcasting stat, though. They can make it 19 by their 16th-level through normal advancement ability increases. And it won't slow their access to new spell levels that way.

I understand the mechanics of it... I just don't see why spellcasters must be railroaded in this manner. One's class level is suppposed to represent what a class is capable of doing. Their ability scores should only determine how well they do it.

Perhaps set the initial scores in 3 tiers? 1 primary score, 2 secondary scores, and 3 tertiary scores? Primary score could be determined with 1d4+14, secondary scores with 1d6+12, and tertiary scores with 1d10+8. So.... primary of 15-18, avg. 16.5, secondary of 13-18, avg. 15.5, tertiary of 9-18, avg. 13.5.

Or primary 1d4+14, secondary 1d8+10, tertiary 1d12+6. Avg. 16.5, 14.5, and 12.5.

Hmmmmm.... that's some tasty food for thought.

 

[Claudius Gaius]

Actually, the fewer the number of dice in use, the more likely the extremes of the system are. The more dice in use, the more the numbers tend to cluster around the average of the resulting bell curve. Single-die rolls are far more likely to result in characters with all-high or all-low attributes than multiple-die rolls.

 

[Arkhandus]

Yeah, but multiple die-rolls increase the probability of average results. For the most 'equal' chance of getting one score or another, a single die roll is best. And the initial boost of +8, 10, 12, or 14 to a stat already ensures that it'll be decent or good at the very minimum.....

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Perhaps you could give every one the following stats...

8
10
12
12
14
14
16

Place the scores to taste. They may then roll a D6 and add it to that ability score. Everyone gets 3-4 D6 rolls. By rolling on the 16, you nearly guarantee a max 18, but must settle for some lower scores. By rolling on lower scores, you may get an uber PC, or captain slightly-above-average. This gives some randomness, organic scores (I think...), and insures that everyone has a playable PC.