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

[Haldrik]

What if, the standard is, every level 1 "talented" character uses the following array:

16 (+3), 15 (+2), 14 (+2), 12 (+1), 11 (+0), 10 (+0).

These numbers include any "race" tendencies.

For example, the "typical" talented orc − the one found in a monster statblock entry − is:

Orc: Str 16, Con 15, Dex 14, Int 11, Wis 12, Cha 10.


This is the entry, but is only true on average.

DMs and players can easily build a unique individual by rearranging the array numbers according to character concept.



By the way, to generate comparable numbers randomly, 8+2d4 produces nice numbers, averaging 13, and between 10 and 16.

 

[Haldrik]

A female drow priest of Lolth would be something like the following on average:

Drow cleric: Str 11, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 14



This is at the lowest tier, levels 1 to 4. At higher tiers, the array tends to improve on average.



Which reminds me, I wish the monster statblocks were quantified by levels, like player characters are. Then the DM needs a guideline for what level the combat challenge should be, depending on the level and number of persons (allies versus hostiles) involved in the challenge.

I find the "creature rating" to be an unnecessary variable that obfuscates the level mechanic. It seems more helpful to just refer to level directly, so there is a clearer sense of what is appropriate.

Presumably, since player characters are likely to win an encounter, the typical challenge is lower level than the party of player characters. A "fair fight" would be deadly. And appropriate for recurring villains, and so on.

 

[Tallifer]

Why not just use 5E's 15,14,13,12,10,8? And then add the bonuses wherever?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Why not just use 5E's 15,14,13,12,10,8? And then add the bonuses wherever?

I assume the above array is for if we were to get rid of racial ability bonuses.

 

[Morrus]

I personally feel that 5E as it is already creates a limited set of very similar characters, and using an array makes that problem worse. I can accept that's just me. I"m more for stuff that increases variety than stuff that limits it.

 

[Horwath]

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.

 

[Haldrik]

I personally feel that 5E as it is already creates a limited set of very similar characters, and using an array makes that problem worse. I can accept that's just me. I"m more for stuff that increases variety than stuff that limits it.

The point of the array is to officially define an "average" (or "modality"/"plurality"), while simultaneously making it clear that many individuals deviate from this average.

In other words, the array opens up design space for unique concepts and creativity.

If a DM or player wants to play a stereotype, according to Common expectations, then the array is a go-to.

If a DM or player wants to play an Uncommon character, there is no problem.

If the DM or player wants a Rare character who plays against type, that too is fine.

In fact there is even more room for creativity. Currently, having race bonuses punishes players who want to play against type. An orc wizard will always start off inferior and never catch up until everyone hits the 20 ceiling. By using the array instead, players just rearranges the numbers, so the less typical orc wizard has a 16 Intelligence just like the more typical high elf wizard would.

Here the array is the default. The numbers are fine for most character concepts, including MAD ones. And the arrays are a convenient gauge to quantify a "typical" class, background, or heritage concept at a glance. But a player can easily substitute the 8+2d4 method to generate a character randomly, if that is what the player prefers. I suspect a table can even have some players use the array and some players use the random dice, without too much problem with balance.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

If going that route, I would rather drop scores, and refer to bonuses directly: +3, +2, +2, +1, +0, +0

 

[Horwath]

If going that route, I would rather drop scores, and just refer to bonuses directly: +3, +2, +2, +1, +1, +0

that works too for me, but I feel it would be easier to sell to majority if we keep the average score of 10(+0).

 

[Lanefan]

No thanks. Default = roll.