D&D 5E The "Perfect" (for me anyway...) Ability Generation System(s)

[Clint_L]

Which is great if you don't want to roll dice... but rolling d6s was part of the point in the OP anyway.

The title is "The perfect (for me anyway) Ability Generating System(s)." Then you give yours. Which is great. No notes - if they're perfect (for you, anyway), then mission accomplished.

Then other people cite their preferences. As did I. I'm not seeing the issue - my perfect ability generating systems are point buy or standard array (usually standard array because it's easier with new players). A priority for me is avoiding needless friction between young players who don't like it when their character is mechanically weaker than others, forever, because of dumb luck. Which is a fair point, to be honest.

I assumed the point of the thread was to give our perfect ability generating system(s)? Your title doesn't say anything about "must be rolled," and I thought your choice of words ("generating system" rather than "dice rolls") strongly implies anything goes. One person even has pre-generated sets...and you yourself include standard array and point buy variations. So why are my preferences off limit? I don't get it.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah. I like the possibility of the extreme scores. Especially in 5e/5.5e where stat bonuses just don't matter nearly as much as they did in prior editions. I want the players feel like they are playing really exceptional heroes.

then just increase pointbuy pool/standard array.
no need to hassle with rolling scores and dealing with inherent disbalance between characters.

I.E:
1: remove +2/+1 bonus

2: rework point buy.

8: 0pts
10: 1pt
12: 2pts
14: 3pts
16: 5pts
18: 8pts
20: 12pts

pool 31pts:

that can give you starting array of 20,18,16,14,12,10. that gives powerful heroes and every ability has it's own score.


or highly specialized with 20,20,16,10,8,8.

but I would keep max at 18 for 1st level and have slightly lower pool that is above standard for 5E.

array:
18,16,14,14,12,10

that gives pointbuy pool of: 22

 

[Horwath]

Then you have seven possible arrays:

15,14,13,12,11,9
15,14,13,12,11,10
15,14,13,12,10,9
15,14,13,11,10,9
15,14,12,11,10,9
15,13,12,11,10,9
14,13,12,11,10,9

this is why I hate rolling for stats:

even with heavy rules and modification of rolls you are stuck with these two extremes:
15,14,13,12,11,10
and
14,13,12,11,10,9

in point buy it is 30 vs 22 pts.
someone getting 36% more points to spend seems little unfair for a game.

 

[ezo]

At that point just roll a d6 and take the corresponding one of those rolls is way less effort.

I'd never do this (without allowing duplicate totals), personally.

The title is "The perfect (for me anyway) Ability Generating System(s)." Then you give yours. Which is great. No notes - if they're perfect (for you, anyway), then mission accomplished.

Then other people cite their preferences. As did I. I'm not seeing the issue - my perfect ability generating systems are point buy or standard array (usually standard array because it's easier with new players). A priority for me is avoiding needless friction between young players who don't like it when their character is mechanically weaker than others, forever, because of dumb luck. Which is a fair point, to be honest.

I assumed the point of the thread was to give our perfect ability generating system(s)? Your title doesn't say anything about "must be rolled," and I thought your choice of words ("generating system" rather than "dice rolls") strongly implies anything goes. One person even has pre-generated sets...and you yourself include standard array and point buy variations. So why are my preferences off limit? I don't get it.

Sorry, I mistook the implication of your post. You never implied your response was what is the perfect system for you, and so it seemed more like a bash on mine. So, no your preferences are certainly not off limit, but it wasn't clear you were telling us those were "your preferences".

this is why I hate rolling for stats:

Rolling doesn't bother me if extreme scores aren't allowed (my 3A system).

Even with the two extremes in the "no duplicate totals", the total modifiers are +6 vs. +4, which isn't a big deal due to the swingy d20 IMO.

 

[Horwath]

Even with the two extremes in the "no duplicate totals", the total modifiers are +6 vs. +4, which isn't a big deal due to the swingy d20 IMO.

If it isn't a big deal would you let someone just take the strongest array while the others roll?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'd never do this (without allowing duplicate totals), personally.


Sorry, I mistook the implication of your post. You never implied your response was what is the perfect system for you, and so it seemed more like a bash on mine. So, no your preferences are certainly not off limit, but it wasn't clear you were telling us those were "your preferences".

Sorry. Should not be a bash on yours. I just think it is a lot of work to reroll a die so often. So I just said it was easier to just chose one of the few remaining options.
I mean, 4d6 has 6^4 = 36^2 = 1296 only 15 are valid.
And if you only allow no duplicates in the results, there are just 7 different arrays possible.
Since no duplicates can be better modeled by drawing cards, I suggested that.
Not because I hate your method, because I really like it.

And since I want 8 to 15 I modified it to draw from a set of 0,1,3,4,5,6 so it is closer to 12.24 of 4d6 drop lowest and gives a very cool disteibution of stats.

Rolling doesn't bother me if extreme scores aren't allowed (my 3A system).

Even with the two extremes in the "no duplicate totals", the total modifiers are +6 vs. +4, which isn't a big deal due to the swingy d20 IMO.

No. It is not swingy. Those proposals are cool. And I love them.

 

[ezo]

If it isn't a big deal would you let someone just take the strongest array while the others roll?

They can.... it is the standard array for my methods: 15,14,13,12,11,10.

Sorry. Should not be a bash on yours. I just think it is a lot of work to reroll a die so often. So I just said it was easier to just chose one of the few remaining options.

I didn't take others as a "bash" because other posts had phrases such as "I like". It was a bit clearer their intent was to simply express their own preferences. I mistook @Clint_L post in that light.

As far as rolling dice are concerned, no one in my group minds that so I don't think it would be an issue. Honestly, if a player did object or wanted the chances for extreme scores, method 3B is only one reroll and allows lower chances for extremes than 4d6k3.

I mean, 4d6 has 6^4 = 36^2 = 1296 only 15 are valid.
And if you only allow no duplicates in the results, there are just 7 different arrays possible.
Since no duplicates can be better modeled by drawing cards, I suggested that.
Not because I hate your method, because I really like it.

I only took it as your suggestion, no offense at all. However, I know my players perfer rolling than drawing cards, and since 4d6k3 has been the de facto method "forever" using d6s is preferable as well.

And since I want 8 to 15 I modified it to draw from a set of 0,1,3,4,5,6 so it is closer to 12.24 of 4d6 drop lowest and gives a very cool disteibution of stats.

For 8 to 15 the easiest is 2d4+7, but the average 12 is a bit low (and of course, it isn't d6's. ).

No. It is not swingy. Those proposals are cool. And I love them.

Sorry, but the d20 is swingy. That is what I was referring to, just to be clear.

I'm glad you like them. It is fine if people don't. I just know I really like them and combined with @Reynard's suggestion of placement as rolled, I think my days of tweaking ability generation methods are done.

 

[Horwath]

They can.... it is the standard array for my methods: 15,14,13,12,11,10.

Nice

Sorry, but the d20 is swingy. That is what I was referring to, just to be clear.

that is why I prefer d12+4 instead of d20, it keeps the math of MM and most DCs, so no need to change anything.
spread is little contained, and every +/- 1 means 8,33% instead of 5% difference.

there is a more crits, players love to make critical attacks and even champion is buffed by this change.

would have tried d10+5 instead of d12+4, but I like d12 a lot more.

 

[ezo]

that is why I prefer d12+4 instead of d20

This is something we've done in the past when @DND_Reborn was looking for a less swingy resolution system. It worked well enough IIRC. Our current system in development is a 2d6 system, so even "tighter".

 

[RealAlHazred]

I feel like current ability score generation systems result in numbers just way too high. I've felt that since AD&D 1st edition, which had (ugh) options for different generation systems. My current method, I think, is very fair and leads to good characters:

1. Roll 2d6 for each ability score, in order, from top to bottom.
2. Come up with backstory elements. Each negative element you come up with (an old enemy, a physical limitation, something along those lines) gives you an additional d6 you can put to one of those ability scores.
3. When you've generated your ability scores, you roll a d30 and try to get under your CON score. If you don't, the character dies in character generation (you describe the circumstances) and we start over.

The class levels go to level 3 for a reason -- characters aren't supposed to survive past that. If you let them have high characteristics (like 10 or 12) they have a chance to survive past that, and then what are you supposed to do? The rules only go to level 3. I've seen people talk about higher levels, but those weren't written by Moldvay, but by other guys -- it's not the same game, and not a game I want to play or run!

Let me tell you, when characters make it to level 3 in my game, the players feel really accomplished! They know they achieved something special and rare! That's how it should be! How many modern gamers get bored with their characters? That never happens at my table!