|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 7:29AM
#1
|
|
|
Recommendation for Basic D&D: Ability Score Generation Methods
Default Standard Array Method: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
Optional Point-Buy Method: 26-Point Buy
Ability Point
Score: Cost
(18) (50 points)
17: 30 points
16: 26 points
15: 12 points
14: 8 points
13: 3 points
12: 2 points
11: 1 point
10: 0 points
9: −1 points
8: −2 points
7: −3 points
6: −4 points
When the points of all six ability scores total 26 points, the effectiveness of the array will be about as effective as the Standard Array.
Examples of arrays generated by the 26-Point Buy:
• 17 10 10 10 10 6
• 16 12 10 10 10 8
• 15 15 12 10 10 10
• 15 14 13 12 11 10
• 14 14 14 12 10 10
• 14 14 13 13 12 12
Optional Dice-Roll Method: Roll 2d6 + 4 for each score for three arrays, then choose any array.
Note about methods: Each player at the table may choose any of these methods to determine the array for the player character. The methods should generate comparable arrays. So dont worry too much what the other players are getting. Now, the Dice-Roll Method is a gamble and can generate a noticeably better or worse array. But the gap between it and the other arrays should be narrow enough to allow all characters to perform comparably.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 7:29AM
#2
|
|
|
The current Playtest (01 28 13) offers three methods of generating scores for the abilities. Here are the arrays that each method generates
• Default: 4d6 Method ≈ (16,14,13,12,11,10)
• Optional: Array Method = (15,14,13,12,11,10)
• Optional: Point-Buy Method ≈ (15,15,15,8,8,8)
The problem is, the default method of Roll 4d6 Drop Lowest is statistically superior to either optional method.
The Playtest default of the 4d6 Method generates an average array that, for the 4e Point-Buy Method is equivalent to about 22 or 21 points (where 22 is the 4e standard), and for the 3e Point-Buy Method is equivalent to about 30 or 29 points.
By contrast, Playtest option of the Array is only worth 20 points for the 4e Point-Buy System, or 28 points for the 3e Point-Buy System. The array option inferior to the 4d6 default by 2 points. Not only that, the 4d6 default is likely to grant a score of 16, and even a 17 or 18 is possible, while alternative Playtest options make 16, 17, and 18 impossible to achieve. These highest scores are extremely valuable, and their presence or absence significantly skews character effectiveness.
Finally, the Playtest Point-Buy Method is equivalent to only a 17 points in 4e, or 24 points in 3e. The Playtest Point-Buy Method is drastically inferior to the other two Playtest methods. The Playtest Point-Buy Method also makes the game-changing values of 16, 17, 18 impossible.
In comparison, the three methods create characters at significantly different levels of power. Worse, because the optional methods are strictly inferior, the incentive is to use the default 4d6 Method. That is the worst of the problem. Because the 4d6 Method is a poor method that is extremely unreliable.
Altho the 4d6 Method generates an average array equivalent to about 30 points in 4e, it actually varies considerably. A group that use the 4d6 Method is like to have one player with an array worth 35 points while an other player suffers an array 25 points. Easily there can be spread of 10 points between player characters. This creates severe gaps in the effectiveness between player characters. With the luck of a single session of dice rolls, one character will dominate with an extreme advantage for the entire champaign, possibly lasting many years in reallife. While an other character suffers weakly.
The main concern is, D&D Next uses “bounded accuracy” as the foundation of the gaming design. Because of this, characters with lower scores are better for the wellbeing of the game overall.
Therefore, the Playtest Array Option (15,14,13,12,11,10) are the scores that need to become the Standard for D&D Next.
The wonky 4d6 Method can be removed from the game, and replaced with a more reliable dice roll method.
Finally, the Playtest Point-Buy Method needs tweaking to generate values that are more comparable to the Array Method.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 7:48AM
#3
|
|
|
These arrays are equivalent to the Playtest Standard Array. The values of the arrays depend on calculations in an other thread, Arrays. Compare quickly with a set of arrays that cost a different price. This “Elite Array”, 15 14 13 12 11 10, costs 12.5 points.
Here are arrays that cost 12.5 points:
17 11 10 10 10 6
16 12 10 10 10 8
15 14 13 12 11 10
14 14 14 13 11 10
Because the Playtest Array Method uses 15 14 13 12 11 10 as the Standard Array. The values above are other arrays of comparable value.
These are the values that the Playtest Point-Buy Method should calibrate with, and that the Playtest dice-rolling method should tend toward.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:02AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Asymmetrical pointbuys need to cease to be. It shouldn't cost (over) twice as much to get to +2, than what going to -2 returns. Consider this method: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:07AM
#5
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Assymetrical pointbuys need to cease to be. It should't cost twice as much to get a +2 than going to -2 returns.
Consider this method:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Asymmetry is the only thing that even remotely preserves a point buy system that lets you sell back from baseline for points. This is because a +2 in your prime stat is more valuable than a -2 in a stat you don't regularly use is damning.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:12AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
It's the DMs job to shut down blatant minmaxing, not the system itself.
Quite frankly, if the system rolls over and dies when a 20/20/20/1/1/1 character somehow shows up, it's just fundamentally flawed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:53AM
#7
|
|
|
Here is a dice rolling method. It produces scores generally comparable to the Standard Array. Occasionally a player might get lucky with an awesome array, or unlucky with a blah one. But the spread between the effectiveness of their arrays wont be too terrible. They can probably play their characters at the same table without noticing too much that one is better than the other.
Roll 2d6+4 for each score for three arrays, then choose any array.
Each score will range from 6 to 16. However the lower scores rarely happen, unless you choose them because that array comes with several higher scores.
So far, the method is producing values that I myself can live with if everyone else is using the array. It even is producing values that I could live with if I got one of the blah arrays while an other player got one of the awesome arrays.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:59AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Roll 2d6+4 for each score for three arrays, then choose the best array.
That's interesting.
I'd change "best" to "any". The "best array" is very subjective.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 10:01AM
#9
|
|
|
Roll 2d6+4 for each score for three arrays, then choose the best array.
That's interesting.
I'd change "best" to "any". The "best array" is very subjective.
Fair enough. It really does depend on the character concept. Will update the wording to any.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:51PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Rolling stats is for players like me who want to let chaos have a hand in character creation. I for one don't believe every character in a party should be equal, that's boring to me. I like working with the strengths and weaknesses I get, not custom-tailoring my character to be perfect. That's why I'll always roll my stats and have my players do the same.
But the other options should be offered of course for every player's satisfaction, and they should be balanced to each other. I do see the problem with the standard array being too low. I think it should have a 16, because in many years of rolling 4d6 almost all of my characters have had a 16 or higher.
Obviously there is no way to actually balance a radomized system with a non-randomized system, but 16,14,13,12,10,8 would be my suggestion, not based on math but observation from many randomly generated characters.
|
|
|
