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

[Haldrik]

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

Yes. Normally, all of the below average characters are non-player characters.

A to play a below-average character would be an option that is available to players who have interest and narrative preparation to play a below-average character, and would not be a default. The default is "heroic" in the sense of being a powerful combatant.

It occurs to me, the same players who want to play a below-average character are probably less likely to be insulting toward reallife persons who face challenges, mild or serious.

5e has Inspiration as a mechanic. It is simplistic, but can be used to reward players who play interesting character concepts, including below-average concepts.

I also like avoiding the negative numbers to expedite math speed.

 

[TwoSix]

Also @TwoSix

Even when players pick whatever scores they want, the default array is still useful to communicate a baseline for what the gaming engine expects, to measure how high or low the chosen abilities are.

I have no disagreement with that.

 

[Imaculata]

Yes. Normally, all of the below average characters are non-player characters.

A to play a below-average character would be an option that is available to players who have interest and narrative preparation to play a below-average character, and would not be a default. The default is "heroic" in the sense of being a powerful combatant.

I didn't say a below average character. I said below average stats. As in, one or two abilities that are below 10.

 

[Haldrik]

[Post moved to an other thread]

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of my old GMs

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.

One of my old GMs used to do this, just told people to do what they wanted and assign what ever scores. I still admire his cojones.

 

[Haldrik]

I didn't say a below average character. I said below average stats. As in, one or two abilities that are below 10.

Everything between 8 and 12 is close enough to "average" human.

Mainly the 10 is to avoid negative-bonus numbers, so calculations feel less like "calculations", so as to focus on narrative natural language.

At the same time, keeping the bounds of the abilities between 10 and 16 has the benefit of randomized characters (8+2d4) balancing well with default characters.

 

[Haldrik]

One of my old GMs

One of my old GMs used to do this, just told people to do what they wanted and assign what ever scores. I still admire his cojones.

LOL! Might as well. Back then, they would cheat anyway.

This way, when they "rolled amazing", they can just be honest about wanting a Mary-Sue character.

 

[Lanefan]

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...)

I can if I roll.

 

[Horwath]

That shrinks the design space for feats, as "+1 stat, and some other benefits" now don't work.

that is true.

But you can always buff up half-feats to full feat strength or simply sat that instead of +1 ASI(new value suggested) take 2 half-feats without attached +1.

 

[Imaculata]

Everything between 8 and 12 is close enough to "average" human.

Mainly the 10 is to avoid negative-bonus numbers, so calculations feel less like "calculations", so as to focus on narrative natural language.

At the same time, keeping the bounds of the abilities between 10 and 16 has the benefit of randomized characters (8+2d4) balancing well with default characters.

But it means you're not going to have any player characters that are bad at a particular thing.... which is what makes character creation so much fun.