Stegyre
2011-01-17, 01:44 PM
I am toying with the following idea for ability scores in an E6 game and would appreciate feedback (“good idea”; “terrible idea”; “did you consider . . . “; etc.)
1. Determine all abilities using a 28 point buy.
2. Once all the points are allocated – and before racial adjustments – roll 6d6; for each 1, decrease an ability -1; for each 5 or 6, increase an ability +1. The player may choose which ability is modified by which die, with the following constraints:
a. No ability may be raised above 18 or reduced below 8; and
b. No ability may be raised or lowered by more than 1 (so a player may use a 5 or 6 to offset a 1 – he need not apply one die to every ability score – but he cannot use two 5s or 6s to increase an ability +2).
3. Additional ability score increases will be granted every even level, rather than every fourth level, so by 6th character level, a character will have gained three +1 increases, instead of the usual one.
4. Characters may also increase ability scores by taking a new feat for that purpose. Essentially, each iteration of this feat grants +1 to an ability score, and the feat may only be taken once for each ability (i.e., once for +1 to Strength, once for +1 to Dexterity, etc.)
Analysis: On average, a character should net +1 to one attribute at creation (assuming one 1, two 5s or 6s, and three other); judiciously applied, this should result in an equivalent of at least a 30 point buy (raising an attribute 14 or higher by +1). With three additional increases from levels, the “final” (6th level) character should be equal to a point buy of 32 to 40. (For comparison, a starting 32-point buy character, gaining only one attribute increase, would have a final point buy value of 33 to 35.)
One obvious problem: what to do for characters who get “sucky” rolls (anything resulting in a net decrease – more 1s than 5s or 6s)? A corresponding problem is how to discourage players from simply rerolling the 6d6 until they gain a disproportionate number of 5s and 6s.
One possibility would be to grant a bonus feat for a net negative roll. (In an extreme case, perhaps one bonus feat for each net negative, so a character with three 1s and no 5s or 6s would start with three bonus feats.)
Another possibility would be to raise the cap on increasing abilities for such characters: they may start lower but may ultimately progress higher, but this comes at the opportunity cost of taking other feats.
1. Determine all abilities using a 28 point buy.
2. Once all the points are allocated – and before racial adjustments – roll 6d6; for each 1, decrease an ability -1; for each 5 or 6, increase an ability +1. The player may choose which ability is modified by which die, with the following constraints:
a. No ability may be raised above 18 or reduced below 8; and
b. No ability may be raised or lowered by more than 1 (so a player may use a 5 or 6 to offset a 1 – he need not apply one die to every ability score – but he cannot use two 5s or 6s to increase an ability +2).
3. Additional ability score increases will be granted every even level, rather than every fourth level, so by 6th character level, a character will have gained three +1 increases, instead of the usual one.
4. Characters may also increase ability scores by taking a new feat for that purpose. Essentially, each iteration of this feat grants +1 to an ability score, and the feat may only be taken once for each ability (i.e., once for +1 to Strength, once for +1 to Dexterity, etc.)
Analysis: On average, a character should net +1 to one attribute at creation (assuming one 1, two 5s or 6s, and three other); judiciously applied, this should result in an equivalent of at least a 30 point buy (raising an attribute 14 or higher by +1). With three additional increases from levels, the “final” (6th level) character should be equal to a point buy of 32 to 40. (For comparison, a starting 32-point buy character, gaining only one attribute increase, would have a final point buy value of 33 to 35.)
One obvious problem: what to do for characters who get “sucky” rolls (anything resulting in a net decrease – more 1s than 5s or 6s)? A corresponding problem is how to discourage players from simply rerolling the 6d6 until they gain a disproportionate number of 5s and 6s.
One possibility would be to grant a bonus feat for a net negative roll. (In an extreme case, perhaps one bonus feat for each net negative, so a character with three 1s and no 5s or 6s would start with three bonus feats.)
Another possibility would be to raise the cap on increasing abilities for such characters: they may start lower but may ultimately progress higher, but this comes at the opportunity cost of taking other feats.