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

[Charlaquin]

So, do they roll all the time then? If they do, they are already getting better scores than either the current standard array or point-buy allows.

My suggestion if they insist on more and roll, is do 5d6-2L for two scores, and 4d6-L for the rest. I haven't run the numbers, but that will allow them two scores which should be better if they need that.

EDIT: ok, ran the numbers, it works IMO.

DICE METHOD: two 5d6 twice and 4d6 four times, keeping the best three dice for each roll. [Average: 12.64]
STANDARD ARRAY: 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 [Average: 12.5]
POINT-BUY: 32 points, as normal but max 16 (costs 11 points). [Average: 12.5, well... sort of]

Then get rid of any racial, class, background, floating ASIs and just put the scores where you want them. Done.

I like this in concept, but personally I would rather go

DICE METHOD: 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 scores, keep the 6 highest.
STANDARD ARRAY: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (thats the average set of scores with the above rolling method, rounded to the nearest whole number.)
POINT BUY: 32 as normal but max 16 (costs 11 points). Exactly what it would cost to build the above standard array in 5e’s point buy (if the max was 16).

Same idea, but 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 scores and drop the lowest of those is in my opinion a cleaner method than 5d6 drop 2 for two scores and 4d6 drop 1 for the rest. It keeps the dice code what we’re used to since 3e, you just do it one extra time and keep the best set from that. The array perfectly fits the average results with the rolling method, and also happens to be the standard array for 4e, and the point buy system lets you re-arrange the numbers and get basically the same average as the array.

If you want to get extra-spicy, offer a Feat at first level in exchange for only rolling 6 scores, taking a standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, or 5 point buy points.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Only if you do not allow +3, because if you do, you've just piegonholed the mix of ''viable build'' even more.

Fact is, those people that do not play golitath wizard because they dont have a + to Int (for example)? Do you really think that the fact that you can gain 2 x +1s from background and culture actually mean they will say ''ah, no matter if my specie does not give me a +1 int, I can finally play my goliath wizard'' instead of going anyway for that +1 specie for the whole +3 INT?

And then, min-maxer will just do the thing they did before: take the optimal combination. Having the pluses come from more than one place is just extra steps to gain the same +2, +1 races already do. No matter if it comes only from your race choice, from background and race, from culture and background, from 3 or 10 places.

If we want people to actually care about the background/culture/ancestry they choose in a in-setting sense, we should remove the stat bonuses in favor of roleplay and flavor features.

13th Age doesn't allow the bonuses to stack.

 

[KnightOfTheGrey]

I am partial to 3d6(drop lowest)+4. It gives you a score between 6 and 16, with the lower end being rarer. I never ran the numbers, but I seem to notice higher average starting scores (I dont have racial ASI in my game, by the way).

I'm looking at the anydice results for this and I really like it; your average starting scores shouldn't be much higher (the mean is still 13 and you've got around a 70% chance of sitting between 11 and 15 compared to around a 60% chance on 4d6 drop lowest) but you don't see as many extreme outliers so it's harder to find cases where you need to dump your scores and start over, and it's more normalized so you won't have as much resentment for the one person at the table who just happened to throw the higher scores.

 

[Stalker0]

I personally miss the small ability bonus given to classes we saw in the 5e play test

 

[Kinematics]

My first pref would be having it split between race/species and background, but not be included in culture/upbringing.

My second choice would be to just have a free ASI at first level which can be put in as +2 to a stat, or getting a feat.

My third choice would be getting rid of the attribute boosts entirely, and provide a richer set of secondary benefits spread out among race/upbringing/background. Crafting bonuses, advantage on social interactions, call in favors, etc. Help the roleplay and social side of things.

 

[Guest 6801328]

An alternative I've toyed around with is rolling straight 3d6 x 6, in order, but then having 12 points for for Point Buy to raise scores. That gives you the same average scores as the other system.

Then put ability score bonuses into the classes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree there's mentality thing about it.

But at the same time, if its about perception of the score, how about this:

If having a 20 in a stat is the pinnacle of mortal capacity, like, 20 STR is herculean and 20 INT is a super genius, doesnt it feel strange to attain such a feat while being a minor, pretty local hero?

A Veteran (from the MM) as 16 STR, a Warlord (CR 12) has 20 in STR. I know PCs are one step above the common people, but if a character, in-setting, is a powerful warlord, it would be strange to have a local adventurer with more STR than him, no?.

Not in the slightest. Why would the warlord have higher strength than the guy who is about to violently depose him?

Why would Sherlock Holmes not have the highest Int possible as close as possible to the start of the story, before he has made himself nationally famous?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why would the warlord have higher strength than the guy who is about to violently depose him?

Because, as CR 12, following XGtE encouter builder, the warlord would be a match for 2 level 20 PCs. So having a level 4-to-8 having the same STR score as a NPC supposedly able to stand its ground easily against a PC of max level feels a little strange. Having 20 STR makes you at more or less the same STR level as a Hill giant, young dragons, orcs chosen by their god or a giant boar and stronger than a horse, an ogre, vampire or minotaurs.

I get that ability scores are an abstraction, but having a fighter who just go their subclass, that are barely out of the training-wheel level be able to rivals the STR of aboves creatures does feels weird to me.

Why would Sherlock Holmes not have the highest Int possible as close as possible to the start of the story, before he has made himself nationally famous?

Ok, so up-and-coming detective Sherlock Holmes is able to start his career with 17 INT. And then what? Is intellectual powers of deduction reach its peak within a few weeks on the job at level 4-to-8? Once he gets to be world famous (say level 12+), his detective brain would not have improved in any way since his few first assignments?

To me, that's a boring narrative. I can also presume this is one reason people tend to stop playing after mid-level: they stunt their character progression by capping all the cool stuff as soon as possible, then, once the character sheet is full, they dont know where to take the character. I say, if the game stopped assuming super-heroic stats at semi-high level, it would be possible to have meaningful high level games. But since 5e assumes you can cap your stats and gain most of your cool stuff by level 10 or so, the rest of the character rules feel like padding or afterthoughts.

But we can agree to disagree; its only a matter of preference.

 

[Guest 6801328]

More evidence that stats are a measure of more than just raw capacity.

16 Strength on a halfling warrior does not mean the same thing as 16 Strength on a goliath wizard.

 

[KnightOfTheGrey]

More evidence that stats are a measure of more than just raw capacity.

16 Strength on a halfling warrior does not mean the same thing as 16 Strength on a goliath wizard.

You say that, but under the 5e rules it gives them the exact same bonuses to the exact same actions.