Optimization does not mean choosing to be good in everything. Optimization is the process of finding the optimal parameters in the confines of specific restrictions. These restrictions commonly force certain compromises between the parameters. That's what makes it interesting.
If you choose for everybody to have 100 stat points to distribute, that's just another set of restrictions and the DM will need to adjust everything around it manually. The game will, in the end, not really change. If you choose to follow the restrictions set by the rules all other things will fit to these nicely and the DM will not need to make adjustments.
You can choose to play a game without challenges by having much higher stats than adviced. The easier way to this would be to just use much lower tier monsters, though.
A way I like using for character concepts but do not actually use for campaigns as not starting anything new and too complicated to clear with DM at the moment (it's my own creation not one found somewhere where others have tested:
Start with all 6 scores at 12. (10 is everage humanoid, you are not an average humanoid). [12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12]
Roll 3x "positive" 1d6 mark them down. [POS: +5, +5, +2]
Roll 3x "negative" 1d6 mark them down: [NEG: -6, -6, -4]
You can choose, if you wish to combine 1 Positive with 1 Negative. You can do this 3 times max. This means one score remains 12 each time but even if you do this all 3 times 3 scores will still change. The result from one of these cannot be combined further.
So, I do not like those -6 and so for each one I combine the +5. : -6+5 =-1. So my pools are: [POS:+2], [NEG: -1, -1, -4]. I do not want to combine the +2 with -4 as I want a 14 score and may be able to use a dump stat like Strength for a Sorcerer. I cannot do anything with those -1 but they're fine.
So, of my 6 scores I must reduce two by -1 and one by -4, and I can increase one score by +2. My stat array is now: [11, 11, 8, 14, 12, 12, 12]. Nothing much, but I could make two 12 into 13 with 14 becoming 16 by going half-elf sorcerer. I can turn those 13s into 14s with one ASI and then focus on my charisma on future ASI.
I find this way gives me more malleable results and with less occurrence of overpowered stats because even if you get 3x positive 6s, you will have to keep all the negative ones which can balance it - you'll be strong in 3 and weak in 3. Combining brings something closer to average to avoid negative/lack of modifiers at cost of sacrificing higher positive mods.
And it sounds more complicated than it is when you put into practice. I tend to like the results more than if I roll or point buy or go manual.
--
I will also say I detest the "roll for specific stat" method. I insist on an array and getting to assign to which stat I want. If I am not permitted this, I will not be playing. Why? Because I may have characters in mind already, I want to play characters and classes I will enjoy not be forced to choose between one I enjoy but sucking at the stats or one with ok stats that I hate playing. If all my mental stats are weak and my strong stat is Strength, I'm basically shoehorned into either Fighter or Barbarian if I want any reasonable chance of actually achieving at anything at all in the game. I have played these classes, I don't like them, so why limit my choice? Nothing but terrible experiences with this so yeah, I expect to assign the score to the stat or I go play with others.
First, so there is meaningful choice between bumping ability scores and choosing feats. If someone starts with max in their "primary" stat, or 1 ability score increase away, it's a stealth buff to the number of feats they have.
Second, with a game designed around bounded accuracy, deferring them hitting the upper echelon of 1/2 their total modifier to things gives them more room for progression, and allows them to *actually get better* at stuff- going from +4 total (+2 from 15 +2 from proficiency) to +11 total (+5 stat +6 proficiency) is a lot more impactful than going from +7 (+5 stat +2 proficiency) to +11.
Third, as much as the majority of players want to be all powerful at everything, the natural design of players (Be REALLY good at a few things, and REALLY bad at other things) leads to situations wherein what is a challenge for some players is outright impossible for others, and a challenge for them is automatic success for the 'optimized' character at that task. 5e fixes this to an extent with bounded accuracy, but then does some really stupid things, like including +1-+3 accuracy weapons, and Expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) and spells like Pass Without Trace, which provides a +10 bonus that stacks with everything (seriously who thought that was a good idea?). So it's still a concern to keep in mind. Having a narrower range between the best and worst stats goes a Long way to alleviate that concern.
Fourth, Point Buy allows players agency in choosing exactly how their stats work out, without having a massive range in power level between some characters and others. A character whose highest stat is a 12 and whose lowest stats are two of them at 4 playing at the same table as someone with all 18s and a couple of 20s just isn't going to have fun. The things they're supposed to be good at, the super character is just going to be better, and everything else, they'll just feel useless while the super character is awesome at everything. This is an extreme case which hopefully no DM would allow to occur, but it's a microcosm of a larger reality, in that rolled characters can have Very different results, and a +3 or +4 total difference in ability bonuses across the board Is Felt by players.
All of those are why I use point buy, and why I support it, and why it makes sense to me to bound results at +8 on the low end and +15 at the high end. Also, when rolling, the chances of a 16 or higher are not as high as you might think. The game isn't really designed around it.
With my old group we rolled, but we added the modifiers compared them, then everyone who deviated from the others had to alter their scores accordingly or roll again if it was too different. Nowadays I'm a big fan of the standard array; it allows for pretty varied characters, all of them have some flaws and none are super-minmaxed. My group is fine with it and it means that most characters are rather similar in their to-hit and saving throws, making it a bit easier to balance the combat encounters accordingly.
It's fine either way, just as long as the group is on the same page with the DM. For AL the point buy is great and I am actually a fan of lower stats as it give you something to shoot for. I just hit level 12 with my Wizard and finally capped his Int at 20. If I had a 20 earlier, I would be taking all kinds of weird feats that would make him a bit over the top. If everyone wants to have super characters or characters with deep flaws then rolling is great, but for any type of league play it would easily and most assuredly be abused. Even with the point buy, you can get a really powerful character in a certain area, you just won't be amazing at everything which is good.
It may not be the most popular option (I don't really know), but I use standard array when I DM. I enjoy the balance of numbers for all the players and it allows them to have 1, sometimes 2, good stats and then an 8 in one of them. When I play, I also prefer the standard array. I'm boring, I know. Point buy can be fun though. It makes things pretty balanced too for the most part.
Just for the record, when I DM a campaign, I allow the following options for ability score generation
1) Arrays- either the standard array, or 'my array', which is 16 14 14 12 10 6, which is +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 -2 compared to standard.
This allows for an 18 with racial bonus at the start, gives them 2 +2 stats, and gives them a glaring weakness. Some prefer standard. Some take me up on it. IMHO those who take me up on it have a more compelling character due to a legitimate flaw.
2) Rolling- When rolling it's 5d6 drop the 2 lowest, 4d6 drop lowest x3, 4d6 drop highest, and 5d6 drop 2 highest. Reroll if total bonuses are less than +5 or more than +7.
It's not as bad as you would think- the most likely result on a 5d6 drop 2 is a 14, 18s are still only going to occur 3.5% of the time, but it does make it so they have a 50% chance of 14 or higher, and makes it likely they have at least ONE good stat. Similarly 5d6 drop 2 highest is a 50% chance of a 7 or below, and is most likely somewhere between a 5 and a 9. Overall it tends to end up looking pretty similar to one of the arrays, truth be told, but it lets them feel like They were in control, and certainly allows for Some variance
3) Point Buy
We've already talked about this :-)
All 3 of those systems are chosen in pretty much all of my campaigns based on player preference and they are all very well balanced compared to each other. Try out my rolling method, see what you get, then see if you *could* have used point buy, and if not how far off you are from having been able to. It works out pretty well
1) Arrays- either the standard array, or 'my array', which is 16 14 14 12 10 6, which is +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 -2 compared to standard.
I really like your array. Seems balanced and fair when given a choice between standard or yours. I have no issues with a score 6 if, with racial bonuses I could easily get 17 or 18 in my main stat. If choosing a spellcaster I could drop that 6 into strength and the only possible thing it could affect is Athletics (encumberance not an issue either, since I rarely have anything heavy to carry - no weapons or armour, for instance) and there are ways to gain proficiency in that to negate the negative mod.
A point buy (at what ever value) is way better than the way you did stats originally (there was NO point buy or variation (unless homebrewed) in 1974-1978): 3d6 rolled IN ORDER. Sucked when you wanted to play something specific and rolled low. Like my original Dwarf (Dwarf was a (Fighter) class back then) rolled a 6 for STR and my Elf (Elf was a (Fighter-Magic User) class) rolled a 9 for INT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A way I like using for character concepts but do not actually use for campaigns as not starting anything new and too complicated to clear with DM at the moment (it's my own creation not one found somewhere where others have tested:
Start with all 6 scores at 12. (10 is everage humanoid, you are not an average humanoid). [12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12]
Roll 3x "positive" 1d6 mark them down. [POS: +5, +5, +2]
Roll 3x "negative" 1d6 mark them down: [NEG: -6, -6, -4]
You can choose, if you wish to combine 1 Positive with 1 Negative. You can do this 3 times max. This means one score remains 12 each time but even if you do this all 3 times 3 scores will still change. The result from one of these cannot be combined further.
So, I do not like those -6 and so for each one I combine the +5. : -6+5 =-1. So my pools are: [POS:+2], [NEG: -1, -1, -4]. I do not want to combine the +2 with -4 as I want a 14 score and may be able to use a dump stat like Strength for a Sorcerer. I cannot do anything with those -1 but they're fine.
So, of my 6 scores I must reduce two by -1 and one by -4, and I can increase one score by +2. My stat array is now: [11, 11, 8, 14, 12, 12, 12]. Nothing much, but I could make two 12 into 13 with 14 becoming 16 by going half-elf sorcerer. I can turn those 13s into 14s with one ASI and then focus on my charisma on future ASI.
I find this way gives me more malleable results and with less occurrence of overpowered stats because even if you get 3x positive 6s, you will have to keep all the negative ones which can balance it - you'll be strong in 3 and weak in 3. Combining brings something closer to average to avoid negative/lack of modifiers at cost of sacrificing higher positive mods.
And it sounds more complicated than it is when you put into practice. I tend to like the results more than if I roll or point buy or go manual.
--
I will also say I detest the "roll for specific stat" method. I insist on an array and getting to assign to which stat I want. If I am not permitted this, I will not be playing. Why? Because I may have characters in mind already, I want to play characters and classes I will enjoy not be forced to choose between one I enjoy but sucking at the stats or one with ok stats that I hate playing. If all my mental stats are weak and my strong stat is Strength, I'm basically shoehorned into either Fighter or Barbarian if I want any reasonable chance of actually achieving at anything at all in the game. I have played these classes, I don't like them, so why limit my choice? Nothing but terrible experiences with this so yeah, I expect to assign the score to the stat or I go play with others.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
First, so there is meaningful choice between bumping ability scores and choosing feats. If someone starts with max in their "primary" stat, or 1 ability score increase away, it's a stealth buff to the number of feats they have.
Second, with a game designed around bounded accuracy, deferring them hitting the upper echelon of 1/2 their total modifier to things gives them more room for progression, and allows them to *actually get better* at stuff- going from +4 total (+2 from 15 +2 from proficiency) to +11 total (+5 stat +6 proficiency) is a lot more impactful than going from +7 (+5 stat +2 proficiency) to +11.
Third, as much as the majority of players want to be all powerful at everything, the natural design of players (Be REALLY good at a few things, and REALLY bad at other things) leads to situations wherein what is a challenge for some players is outright impossible for others, and a challenge for them is automatic success for the 'optimized' character at that task. 5e fixes this to an extent with bounded accuracy, but then does some really stupid things, like including +1-+3 accuracy weapons, and Expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) and spells like Pass Without Trace, which provides a +10 bonus that stacks with everything (seriously who thought that was a good idea?). So it's still a concern to keep in mind. Having a narrower range between the best and worst stats goes a Long way to alleviate that concern.
Fourth, Point Buy allows players agency in choosing exactly how their stats work out, without having a massive range in power level between some characters and others. A character whose highest stat is a 12 and whose lowest stats are two of them at 4 playing at the same table as someone with all 18s and a couple of 20s just isn't going to have fun. The things they're supposed to be good at, the super character is just going to be better, and everything else, they'll just feel useless while the super character is awesome at everything. This is an extreme case which hopefully no DM would allow to occur, but it's a microcosm of a larger reality, in that rolled characters can have Very different results, and a +3 or +4 total difference in ability bonuses across the board Is Felt by players.
All of those are why I use point buy, and why I support it, and why it makes sense to me to bound results at +8 on the low end and +15 at the high end. Also, when rolling, the chances of a 16 or higher are not as high as you might think. The game isn't really designed around it.
With my old group we rolled, but we added the modifiers compared them, then everyone who deviated from the others had to alter their scores accordingly or roll again if it was too different. Nowadays I'm a big fan of the standard array; it allows for pretty varied characters, all of them have some flaws and none are super-minmaxed. My group is fine with it and it means that most characters are rather similar in their to-hit and saving throws, making it a bit easier to balance the combat encounters accordingly.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
It's fine either way, just as long as the group is on the same page with the DM. For AL the point buy is great and I am actually a fan of lower stats as it give you something to shoot for. I just hit level 12 with my Wizard and finally capped his Int at 20. If I had a 20 earlier, I would be taking all kinds of weird feats that would make him a bit over the top. If everyone wants to have super characters or characters with deep flaws then rolling is great, but for any type of league play it would easily and most assuredly be abused. Even with the point buy, you can get a really powerful character in a certain area, you just won't be amazing at everything which is good.
It may not be the most popular option (I don't really know), but I use standard array when I DM. I enjoy the balance of numbers for all the players and it allows them to have 1, sometimes 2, good stats and then an 8 in one of them. When I play, I also prefer the standard array. I'm boring, I know. Point buy can be fun though. It makes things pretty balanced too for the most part.
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
Follow my Campaign!
Ardanian Calendar
Just for the record, when I DM a campaign, I allow the following options for ability score generation
1) Arrays- either the standard array, or 'my array', which is 16 14 14 12 10 6, which is +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 -2 compared to standard.
This allows for an 18 with racial bonus at the start, gives them 2 +2 stats, and gives them a glaring weakness. Some prefer standard. Some take me up on it. IMHO those who take me up on it have a more compelling character due to a legitimate flaw.
2) Rolling- When rolling it's 5d6 drop the 2 lowest, 4d6 drop lowest x3, 4d6 drop highest, and 5d6 drop 2 highest. Reroll if total bonuses are less than +5 or more than +7.
It's not as bad as you would think- the most likely result on a 5d6 drop 2 is a 14, 18s are still only going to occur 3.5% of the time, but it does make it so they have a 50% chance of 14 or higher, and makes it likely they have at least ONE good stat. Similarly 5d6 drop 2 highest is a 50% chance of a 7 or below, and is most likely somewhere between a 5 and a 9. Overall it tends to end up looking pretty similar to one of the arrays, truth be told, but it lets them feel like They were in control, and certainly allows for Some variance
3) Point Buy
We've already talked about this :-)
All 3 of those systems are chosen in pretty much all of my campaigns based on player preference and they are all very well balanced compared to each other. Try out my rolling method, see what you get, then see if you *could* have used point buy, and if not how far off you are from having been able to. It works out pretty well
I really like your array. Seems balanced and fair when given a choice between standard or yours. I have no issues with a score 6 if, with racial bonuses I could easily get 17 or 18 in my main stat. If choosing a spellcaster I could drop that 6 into strength and the only possible thing it could affect is Athletics (encumberance not an issue either, since I rarely have anything heavy to carry - no weapons or armour, for instance) and there are ways to gain proficiency in that to negate the negative mod.
I would prefer your array to rolling, definitely.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond