Level Up (A5E) What if an array is the default?

[Shiroiken]

Isn’t that just point buy with less flexibility?

It provides more flexibility than a single array without providing the complete flexibility of point buy. Some people like myself don't like point buy because of its level of flexibility, but a single array sometimes makes players feel a lack of options for non-standard builds.

 

[glass]

No thanks. Default = roll.

You can roll if you want to, but it should not be inflicted on the unwary.

Isn’t that just point buy with less flexibility?

Based on my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with 5e point buy, it it is "point buy with more flexibility". When I turned up for my first AL game years ago, everyone at the table had bought exactly the same scores (in different places, but the same array).

_
glass.

 

[aco175]

Based on my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with 5e point buy, it it is "point buy with more flexibility". When I turned up for my first AL game years ago, everyone at the table had bought exactly the same scores (in different places, but the same array).

Having the same scores, even if in different places make the PCs more' fair' to the others in terms of power and balance. When I was younger, we used to roll 3d6, then 4d6, and eventually 3d6+1d8 to make stats. It was always fun to make characters and rolling is p[art of the fun. Today, none of my group cares either way and defaults to picking from an array. I'm not sure, but others point to the math being about the same either way in terms of bonuses and super-PCs mostly used to happen when people rolled 'at home' and not as part of a 0-session.

We have been having a lot of pages over several threads about stats and bonuses. Nobody has mentioned yet about letting players just assign any score they want to their PC. There is a lot of talk about not being able to make the character one wants if they cannot get a +2 to the primary class or needing to pick a certain race to get something. I wonder how far away we are from just letting each person pick whatever they want. There will be the 18s all down the line and the player saying that his PC is a 'hero' among his race and others will just pick a low score in something to play what he envisioned. Most may be fairer than others. I'm not for this, but more surprised we have not gotten this far yet.

 

[TwoSix]

We have been having a lot of pages over several threads about stats and bonuses. Nobody has mentioned yet about letting players just assign any score they want to their PC. There is a lot of talk about not being able to make the character one wants if they cannot get a +2 to the primary class or needing to pick a certain race to get something. I wonder how far away we are from just letting each person pick whatever they want. There will be the 18s all down the line and the player saying that his PC is a 'hero' among his race and others will just pick a low score in something to play what he envisioned. Most may be fairer than others. I'm not for this, but more surprised we have not gotten this far yet.

I've advocated for this in the past. It wouldn't work for an organized play setting, but for a home game with people you trust, most people aren't going to abuse it.

I do think point-buy or an array should be the default; most modern gamers come to play with strong concepts for characters that they want to model through character-building. Rolling and accepting what you get is the antithesis of that. There's nothing wrong with procedural generation of characters (there are games I quite enjoy like Shadow of the Demon Lord and Beyond the Wall that do it), it's just not the default for a D&D game in 2020.

 

[Imaculata]

But if you use a standard array like this, you don't have a single player character with below average stats.

 

[aco175]

But if you use a standard array like this, you don't have a single player character with below average stats.

I would allow players to drop scores on the character freely, raising them freely is another matter.

 

[Undrave]

why not
13(+3), 12(+2), 12(+2), 11(+1), 11(+1), 10(+0) ?

get rid of odd scores that that do nothing and have 9-13 array instead of 8-16.

I think it makes ASI more interesting if you have an odd number of odd scores at level 1. You have more to think about.

I still can't start with a 7. 8+2d4 means my stats will all be in the 10-16 range - which is fine, but narrow.

You generally can't start with a 7 in 5e anyway, unless you pick one of the few races that had a minus (which they then removed later...)

Not something I care about all that much. Over the long run the cream tends to rise to the top, and when a character with poor stats does make a good go of it it's worth celebrating.

Then again, I probably expect far more character turnover in my games than modern norms would accept.

Ain't nobody got time for that! I'd rather not waste what rare session time I get slogging it out with a bad character because "LUL RANDOM". That guy with his highest score at 12 is gonna stay home to run a tavern and I'll just bash together something I WANT to play out of the standard array.

Random characteristics are fine if they have lower impact, but Abilities have become WAY more important than 'back in the day'. At least since 3e really.

 

[Undrave]

But if you use a standard array like this, you don't have a single player character with below average stats.

Below average individuals don't become adventurers.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Below average individuals don't become adventurers.

Sorry, but hard disagree on this.

Any individual who has cause and/or desire to adventure can do so. 5E is incredibly forgiving of PCs' ability scores. You can certainly have a successful adventuring career with low scores, you just have to play more cautiously (especially at first).

I've mentioned before (in other threads) one of the most enjoyable PCs I played in 1E was a cleric whose scores ranged from 9-12 for everything. IIRC, he had STR 10, INT 9, WIS 12, DEX 9, CON 11, CHR 10. I even game him as generic a name as I could, "Benson Miller". His family were millers, and he was Ben's son. The game he was in played up until 9th level and he finally retired with his temple built.

Now, many players don't want low scores because it means you will fail more often. Failure never bothered me, personally, because it makes the game more challenging over all.

FWIW, for groups rolling 4d6-L, you have only about a 5-6% chance your average score will be less than 10.5.

 

[Undrave]

I've mentioned before (in other threads) one of the most enjoyable PCs I played in 1E was a cleric whose scores ranged from 9-12 for everything. IIRC, he had STR 10, INT 9, WIS 12, DEX 9, CON 11, CHR 10. I even game him as generic a name as I could, "Benson Miller". His family were millers, and he was Ben's son. The game he was in played up until 9th level and he finally retired with his temple built.

Weren't ability scores in 1E WAY less impactful?? Play the guy in 5e and your weapons attack are done at +2 at level 1, your Spell Attacks at +3 and your spell DC is 11.