Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[Undrave]

Again, you have to allow for other stat generation methods. Not everyone likes the standard array, and it's not the default.

Agreed. My players loathe the standard array...they feel it is too same-y and cookie-cutter for their characters.

Yes, I get that, but you use the standard as the base to devise the number of point in point buys.

Dice roller can just do whatever, they're in it for the better score anyway (I think "4D6 drop the lowest, reroll if you have X number of result below Y" would do fine).

Also, standard array is totally the default on the same level as the sacrosanct dice rolling method (which was totally included to appeal to grognards), point buy is the only one presented as optional in the PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I get that, but you use the standard as the base to devise the number of point in point buys.

Dice roller can just do whatever, they're in it for the better score anyway (I think "4D6 drop the lowest, reroll if you have X number of result below Y" would do fine).

Also, standard array is totally the default on the same level as the sacrosanct dice rolling method (which was totally included to appeal to grognards), point buy is the only one presented as optional in the PHB.

On pg13 of the PH:

"You generate your character's six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice and record the total of the highest three dice on a piece of scratch paper. Do this five more times, so that you have six numbers."

Following that, it does present the standard array if you don't want to roll (and then point buy as a variant), but rolls are clearly the default.

Incidentally, we don't actually know if this was "for the grognards". WotC rarely explains itself in this detail. Maybe they just liked rolling. I do.

 

[CleverNickName]

Maybe the Level-Up project could include a variety of means and methods for the DM to choose from? More options are always better, IMO. I can think of a dozen ways to generate ability scores right off the top of my head:

Roll 3d6, no adjustments.
Roll 3d6, with adjustments (one number goes up 1 point for every 2 points another goes down)
Roll 3d6 in order.
Roll 4d6, drop lowest.
Roll 5d6, drop lowest and highest.
Point buy, fixed number of points to spread
Point buy, random number of points to spread
Point buy, base number varies by race ancestry
Point buy, even spread.
Gritty array.
Standard array.
Elite array.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, even though a grognard myself, I like point-buy the most. It allows a fair amount of customization, prevents one person having god stats and another straight 10's, and is not a rigid "everyone gets the same scores" concept.

For the people who want systems that represent what you would get via racial ASIs in the current systems, I'll repeat myself...

Remove ASIs for race (and not putting them elsewhere, obviously):

ROLLING DICE: 5d6k3 twice and 4d6k3 four times.
ARRAY: 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9
POINT-BUY: 32 points, 16 max costs 11 points.

Are they perfect? No. Why? For one thing, because you can't begin with a 20. Sorry. Looks like you'll have to grow into it.

Later on, at ASI levels (not including fighter and rogue bonus ones!) you get an ASI +2 and an ASI +1. These can stack if you want. You can replace the ASI +2 with a feat.

Otherwise, as @CleverNickName said, there are tons of ways to do it. Determine:

A. What range do you want?
B. What average do you want?

With those two you can devise a rolling system, array, and point-buy that would satisfy any options for the most part.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That and game may not get to level 12.

And even if it does, hell even if it hits 20, the difference is there for more than half the campaign. One character had to catch up to the other. That is either as it should be, or not, but pretending that it isn't the case is just weird and unhelpful, and I can't think of any good reason why some folks keep doing it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't project the real world into my fantasy gaming,

Neither do the people who dislike races being inherently better at certain things than other races.

Now do Spartans and Athenians.

Or Norfolk military tradition and New York Bohemian tradition.

Or New York low-class and New York high-rollers.

Or Jocks and Nerds.

Social groups at any level, be they tribes, villages, city-states, or nations are not mono-cultures. If you go into this assuming that they are, of course you'll get weird results.

This is why I like Agrarian vs Urban, and maybe even most specific than that. The people of the State of New York are made up of a dozen cultures, even before we take into account the different ethno-cultural and national backgrounds of the citizens of that state.
Greeks and Norse might not be that different overall (an arguable claim, especially depending on the time), but Greek farmers and shephards were certainly different from Athenian Urbanites in meaningful ways that DnD likes to represent with numbers.

Maybe instead of 'culture' we could call it 'Upbringing'? Some current background sorta bleed into that so we'd have to change them so backgrounds are more profession-like.

One of the Upbringings in my game is "Secluded House of The Wise". You grew up in a community or single home secluded from the mainstream culture of your time and place, amongst folk who know the truth of the Nine Worlds, and are thus counted amongst the Wise. Nearly all such communities are near enough to mainstream communities that you will have had contact with regular folk, and are practiced in keeping your secrets from them.

I won't go into the mechanical benefits too much, but basically it gives you a set of IIRC 4 Contacts to choose from (you start with 4 total, chosen from your Upbringing, Occupation, Archetype, or created whole cloth by you and your GM), including things like Small Town Official, Wise Mentor, Friend Who Knows People, etc. It also gives 2 skill ranks (Con, which is the lying skill, and Investigation), and you begin with Knowledge regarding 2 factions or people-groups known to The Wise (so, the Alfar of your region, or The Benedanti, for instance).

I haven't decided yet, if Upbringing will raise one of your Ability Score Pools, but it probably will, along with Ancestry, Occupation, and Archetype.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A. What range do you want?
B. What average do you want?

With those two you can devise a rolling system, array, and point-buy that would satisfy any options for the most part.

This.

My group has recently adopted a 32 point buy, because it's pretty close to a satisfying average with the rolling method we used to use, but allows folks to just make the character they want instead of hoping for the right rolls to see if they can feel comfortable playing a Gnomish Monk/Paladin, after years and years of playing systems where it sucks to fall behind numerically.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This.

My group has recently adopted a 32 point buy, because it's pretty close to a satisfying average with the rolling method we used to use, but allows folks to just make the character they want instead of hoping for the right rolls to see if they can feel comfortable playing a Gnomish Monk/Paladin, after years and years of playing systems where it sucks to fall behind numerically.

I forget, do you then add racial ASIs as well, or not?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Neither do the people who dislike races being inherently better at certain things than other races.

Who are these people? I haven't noticed anybody advocating for anything that extreme.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I forget, do you then add racial ASIs as well, or not?

Yes. We aren't interested in rewriting the game, just tweaking one or two things here and there to work more smoothly for us.

Our games where we used the standard point buy are running just fine, of course, but our games with the new PB are running just as well, and are more satisfying in terms of CharGen and the types of characters everyone is comfortable playing.

Who are these people? I haven't noticed anybody advocating for anything that extreme.

This seems like it's probably a disingenuous attempt at nitpicking in order to sidestep the point. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This seems like it's probably a disingenuous attempt at nitpicking in order to sidestep the point. I hope I'm wrong.

Ah, ok. From that response, I take it that I misinterpreted "people who dislike races being inherently better at certain things than other races". I took it to mean "people who don't want races to have any differences." Which I haven't seen advocated.

So by "certain things" you meant specifically "dice rolls using a given attribute"?

Since even without ASIs all the races are better at certain things (for example, an elf is better at resisting charm spells) I didn't parse your sentence as I now think you intended.