What is the standard ability score set? Are most games playing too high?

[Delta]

The main issue we had with rolling stats is the imbalance among players, if one rolled well and others rolled crappy. Nobody likes to be the kid getting sand kicked in his face.

Old-school style, the players functioned as units in a team and not as competitors. (i.e., no PC was kicking sand in any other PC's face.) Personally, I really like a variation in abilities and seeing how the player party supports itself and fills in its weakness (its "bench strength", as it were).

For example: A few months ago I played a short Star Frontiers game. One player rolled up an extremely weak and slow healer and diplomat-type. A second had a tough warrior. The second offered to carry all the gear for the first, including the medical kit, and they wound up attached at the hip, healing and helping and defending for each other more than normal. To me that was fresh and wouldn't have happened if everyone could point-buy stats to taste and avoid all penalties.

 

[Kestrel]

Old-school style, the players functioned as units in a team and not as competitors. (i.e., no PC was kicking sand in any other PC's face.) Personally, I really like a variation in abilities and seeing how the player party supports itself and fills in its weakness (its "bench strength", as it were).

This can be fun as one shots, but I don't buy it over the stretch of 20 levels. Its one thing to purposefully gimp yourself with a point buy, because you buy into the weaknesses when you place the points, but its quite another to just roll badly. While this may be fun to explore on the short term, over the long term its annoying, especially session after session you are constantly being shown up by Highrollers.

I want to feel that I contribute to the party, not just slow it down because I rolled crap on six dice rolls.

 

[William drake]

A post from another thread got me thinking about my upcoming campaign and what "standard point buy" is for D&D. [it's 25]

Not 15 = "low powered campaign" 13, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 +1 bonus
Is it 25? EL's and "elite" NPC's are designed for this = 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 = +5 bonus
Is it 28? That is what they use for Living Greyhawk = 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 = +7 bonus
Is it 32? That is what is considered "high powered" right? 16, 16, 14, 10, 10, 10 = +8 bonus

The reason I ask is to determine how I will hand out buff items in the upcoming game. If you're using a 32 point system you could wait to hand out the items longer right?

jh
[edited to include standard arrays of ability scores)

Wow, I feel now that maybe my players and I play a rough game: what we roll is what we get, and only if its under a 9 do we get to reroll it. Many times, by the end of a very long game, only a single players has a stat in the 20's. I feel that by having the stats to high offsets the game, and makes it so that all the foes must be able to take on the party who has dex's and strength's in the 20's. Also, I fell that when stats get to high, the game becomes "easy" think about it, with stats so high, how hard it is to Dodge, out Will, or Take some time of damage or effect and have little or no care about it.

I dont know, maybe I'm just a lower level gamer than most who play D&D

 

[molonel]

I dont know, maybe I'm just a lower level gamer than most who play D&D

It's just a matter of taste. I really don't like running games beyond 15th to 17th level. The investment of time in developing encounters for a group of 21st+ level adventurers makes my brain hurt.

After one game that went from 10th to 24th, and another that went up to 25th level, I'm running two d20 Modern games with a CoC flavor, and playing in another low-magic D&D game. I'm giving the high-octane high-magic a break for a while.

 

[MarauderX]

I know I'm skimming and jumping to the end, but have you considered an XP point-buy system? Where the players get to choose whether they raise a stat or BAB or saves or whatever? You'll find that many go for a few that are maxed out, leaving the DM plenty of PC 'holes' to sieze an advantage. When the players get to use their pumped up stats they can get pretty excited, and IMO more than with standard leveling.

 

[Emirikol]

Interesting side comment: the guy who writes "DM of the Rings" had his computer roll up 100 million PCs, just to look at rolled stats statistically. The results are really interesting.
One Hundred Million characters, Part 1
One Hundred Million characters, Part 2

Here's the fascinating part..not the character of all 17's and 18's..but the low-stat character!


If the newbie has a lot of time on his hands (a little over a hundred years) he might someday come up with a truly remarkable character. Here is the worst one it managed to come up with:

Worst Character: #96,057,386
STR 5
DEX 7
CON 3
INT 8
WIS 4
CHA 5

What are those modifiers and what kind of bump items would you need then?

jh

 

[Hussar]

For example: A few months ago I played a short Star Frontiers game. One player rolled up an extremely weak and slow healer and diplomat-type. A second had a tough warrior. The second offered to carry all the gear for the first, including the medical kit, and they wound up attached at the hip, healing and helping and defending for each other more than normal. To me that was fresh and wouldn't have happened if everyone could point-buy stats to taste and avoid all penalties.

The problem is, point buy doesn't avoid all the penalties. Or rather, you can, but, you wind up with very, very few bonuses too. If you want no penalties, (assuming human) you eat up 12 of your 25 points just getting from 8 to 10. Take a couple of stats to 14 and you just used up 20 points. 14 14 12 12 11 10 is the best you can really do without taking any penalties. If you play non human, you can pretty much guarantee that you are taking a -1 somewhere.

How many die rolled characters have you seen with those stats? I know the die rolled characters we played with pretty much always had better stats than that.

 

[Choranzanus]

My experience with various point buys is this:

1)If you get used to higher point buys it is difficult to go back, because the players will complain. This is your usual power creep thing, that exists in other parts of the game too.

2)In lower point buy:
a)Some characters are greatly disadvantaged (i.e. paladin)
b)It is difficult to have abilities outside your immediate field of expertise (clerics are less like tanks, fighters never have combat expertise,...)
c)In 15 point buy it is impossible to multiclass (there are exceptions like fighter/barbarian).

3)Higher point buy mostly just gives you a bunch of bonuses, that are far from being decisive or affecing "fun" in a significant way. Your choice of spells, tactic, etc is far more important.

 

[RedFox]

Are any of you using a more-progressive method of ability score advancement? You could start lower (say at the "normal" of 25 or lower) and then advance more. It would give players more to look forward to with levelling.

For example, the normal is: abil's are gained every 4 levels.
How about adding "every 5 levels all ability scores gain one point?"

Starting out at 40+ point buy doesn't seem right for a 1st level character does it?

jh

I've thought about doing one or both of the following, but haven't tried it out yet:

1. PCs get +1 Ability point every level instead of every 4 levels.
2. PCs get one feat every level instead of every 3 levels.

I have little problem with my players being powerful, and I thought that might give them more options. I may test it out sometime.

 

[Aus_Snow]

28 point buy mirrors 'normal' best, using that method. . . though I suspect that 32 point buy might be just as common, if not more so. 25? Forget it. That's subpar, when compared with the standard PHB rolling system.

I personally prefer a 1-for-1 PB system for "freedom meets balance" in this area of chargen. Each to their own of course, and all that.

So anyway, yes: I'd wager that most games are "playing too high" (i.e., higher than 25 PB, or alternatively more generous than a literal reading of the PHB method.)