D&D 5E Multiple Standard Arrays

[abirdcall]

Stat generation is tricky. I think it is especially so in 5e. Stats are very important. I also want variety in stats. I like both high and low numbers. I like middle numbers too and with every race getting bonuses it seems easy to get to that 20.

What about multiple standard arrays? It is kind of like a hybrid of point buy and standard array. Players get to choose among different arrays but they are pre set.

This doesn't solve what I really like about rolling stats though; the need to be creative in my character concept based on the stats that I rolled. The solution is to roll for the array. You could also then roll for where each stat is placed if you wanted to go that far.

What would be a good and balanced set of arrays for 5e?

Also, odd stats are better than even right because of how racial bonuses work? Not sure how to balance that.

Expanding point buy: 6 = -1 16 = 12 17 = 16 - Does that make sense?

Ideally I'd like to get 6-8 balanced and interesting options. I am thinking no stat above a 17 and no stat below a 6. Any problems with that?

*edit* Maybe there should be one with an 18. Going that route it might be a good idea to make 10 or 12 possibilities so there are less chances. Or even do a 2d6 roll and have the extremes on either end with standard array at 7.


Standard:

15 14 13 12 10 8

SAD 1:

17 13 12 11 8 6

SAD 2:

16 13 12 10 10 10

MAD 1:

14 14 14 10 10 10

MAD 2:

14 14 14 14 8 6

 

[tuxgeo]

The problem is with the "expanding point-buy": WotC designed a stats system wherein the point-buy option gives nothing higher than a 15, which was deemed to be fully adequate for role-playing in view of the fact that many races give a +2 racial bonus to one or two stats.

Want 17s? Roll the dice.

 

[abirdcall]

The problem is with the "expanding point-buy": WotC designed a stats system wherein the point-buy option gives nothing higher than a 15, which was deemed to be fully adequate for role-playing in view of the fact that many races give a +2 racial bonus to one or two stats.

Want 17s? Roll the dice.

Right, and the entire point of this is to replicate rolling the dice without the extremes.

You shouldn't need to have a chance to have 17 17 17 17 16 15 or 12 10 8 8 6 4 for stats just because you want a chance at a 17.

This is an alternative. If you are happy with point buy or standard array that's fine. I am looking to create a system with some randomness but less than the current system.

Make more sense?

 

[Paraxis]

The expanded ability point cost chart would look like this.

• 3: -14 pts
• 4: -10 pts
• 5: -7 pts
• 6: -4 pts
• 7: -2 pts
• 8: 0 pts
• 9: 1 pt
• 10: 2 pts
• 11: 3 pts
• 12: 4 pts
• 13: 5 pts
• 14: 7 pts
• 15: 9 pts
• 16: 12 pts
• 17: 15 pts
• 18: 19 pts

The cost is based on the modifier value, a 13 has a +1 modifier so it is 1 pt more expensive than a 12, a 14 has a modifier of +2 so it is 2pts more expensive than a 13, and so on. So a 17 with a modifier of +3 is 3 more than a 16.

The idea of having multiple arrays and then rolling randomly to see what one you use is a good one imo, I still prefer point buy and just leaving it in the hands of the player.

Both even and odd ability scores are valuable, humans can get +1's to all six so turn a bunch of odd numbers into even ones, if they go with the feat option they get two +1's, all other races get a +2 and a +1 so again both even and odd scores are good. The only race that might not want any odd scores is the mountain dwarf that gets two +2's.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It's an interesting option and I think you got the numbers about right, but I wouldn't use it at my table. I like the status quo where no character can start with more than a +3 modifier in a stat. Taking a feat instead of a stat gain at low-mid levels will come as a trade-off.

 

[Roger]

Point-buy already sort-of works like this, insofar as there's a finite set of valid arrays. I crunched them all out an edition or two ago; it's not too hard to pull off.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[abirdcall]

The expanded ability point cost chart would look like this.

The cost is based on the modifier value, a 13 has a +1 modifier so it is 1 pt more expensive than a 12, a 14 has a modifier of +2 so it is 2pts more expensive than a 13, and so on. So a 17 with a modifier of +3 is 3 more than a 16.

Thanks for the breakdown. I suppose my balance concern is that a -1 on a dump stat is not as bad as a +1 on a main stat is good.

It's an interesting option and I think you got the numbers about right, but I wouldn't use it at my table. I like the status quo where no character can start with more than a +3 modifier in a stat. Taking a feat instead of a stat gain at low-mid levels will come as a trade-off.

I suppose I should have been more clear in the OP.

This is definitely not a replacement for stat buy or standard array. If your table is happy with that then there is no problem and everything is good. If you want control then I think standard point buy is great.

It's more of a solution for people who want random stats but also don't want very powerful or very weak characters.

The idea is that the stats are random but the overall power remains fairly constant.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The expanded ability point cost chart would look like this.
<snip>

Resonable, but not (IMO) balanced. A low number in a weak stat is not inversely commensurate with a high number in a high stat. Accepting the expansion at the top end (for 16-18), I'd suggest the following at the low end:

• 3: -5 pts
• 4: -4 pts
• 5: -3 pts
• 6: -2 pts
• 7: -1 pts
• 8: 0 pts
• 9: 1 pt
• 10: 2 pts
• 11: 3 pts
• 12: 4 pts
• 13: 5 pts
• 14: 7 pts
• 15: 9 pts
• 16: 12 pts
• 17: 15 pts
• 18: 19 pts

 

[delericho]

Stat generation is tricky. I think it is especially so in 5e. Stats are very important. I also want variety in stats. I like both high and low numbers. I like middle numbers too and with every race getting bonuses it seems easy to get to that 20.

What about multiple standard arrays? It is kind of like a hybrid of point buy and standard array. Players get to choose among different arrays but they are pre set.

Yep, nothing wrong with offering several arrays.

This doesn't solve what I really like about rolling stats though; the need to be creative in my character concept based on the stats that I rolled. The solution is to roll for the array. You could also then roll for where each stat is placed if you wanted to go that far.

Not keen on this. It seems to be the worst of both worlds: those players who like randomness don't really get it, while those players who don't like it seem to be stuck with it. I'd recommend simply offering the arrays, and leave it at that.

Expanding point buy: 6 = -1 16 = 12 17 = 16 - Does that make sense?

There are a few ways you could expand the table.

One way is to note that at each step the increase in cost is equal to the modifier granted (minimum 1). So a 16 (+3) should cost 3 more points than a 15, and so on. This gives 16 = 12 points, 17 = 15 points, 18 = 19 points.

Another is to note that 5e actually uses all the same costs as 4e, corrected for the fact that 4e starts most of your stats at 10. Under that system, it makes sense to use the same costs as 4e for the remaining stats: 16 = 11 points, 17 = 14 points, 18 = 18 points. (I have no idea where 4e got those numbers from.)

I wouldn't recommend expanding the table downwards, because any player happy to take an 8 in a dump stat will likely leap on the option to further dump it to 6 in order to squeeze another point or so for his best scores.

(FWIW: I actually throw out the point-buy table entirely, and instead use the method from the 3e PHB. Mostly because I know how that works, and also how it balances up against both the array and the rolling method that we use.)

The problem is with the "expanding point-buy": WotC designed a stats system wherein the point-buy option gives nothing higher than a 15, which was deemed to be fully adequate for role-playing...

That sounds like quite an assumption - have WotC ever actually come out and said why they set up the system as they did? From where I'm sitting, it looks entirely possible they just grabbed the 4e numbers as being "good enough".

Want 17s? Roll the dice.

Eh. Plenty of groups like to have the option of buying up the stats to the highest possible level, even with the opportunity costs elsewhere. Since WotC clearly didn't think having a 17 or 18 would break the game (or they wouldn't allow rolling), I don't see why it's a huge problem for them to expand the table as they see fit.

 

[abirdcall]

Here is an example:

Roll 2d6 for stats:

2: 18 13 12 10 6 6

3: 17 15 10 10 8 6

4: 17 14 10 10 8 8

5: 16 15 10 10 10 8

6: 16 13 12 10 10 10

7: 15 14 13 12 10 8

8: 15 14 14 10 10 8

9: 15 13 13 13 11 8

10: 14 14 14 10 10 10

11: 14 14 14 13 11 6

12: 14 14 14 14 9 6


Still needs work of course, this is a first draft.

I am using this chart:

6 = -2
7 = -1
16 = 12
17 = 16
18 = 20

The idea being, as Kobold Stew pointed out, that lower numbers are not as bad and higher numbers are better.