Can we talk about ability scores?

[ImproperJustice]

The whole 3-18 check a chart thing kills me every time I have to teach D&D to nee players.

Next Gen, can we just have a range of scores from -5 to +5?

Starting characters start at 0, and can spend 4 points having up to a +2 in any given stat to start. They can lower a stat by 1, to bump a stat up by one , capping at +2 at level 1.

Races no longer have stat modifiers. Their stupid anyways. We can have smart orcs and cross fit halflings if we want.
The exception being humans that get a +1 or a feat.
Or we make them better. Can fix that later.

Instead, all classes give a +1 in their most relevant stat to begin. Since that is literately what 90% of experienced players do anyways by maximizing race combos anyways. And it ensures new players won’t stink at their chosen roll. Some classes like fighters or monks you choose between Dex or Str, etc....

The high concept is to drop some unnecessary math, and provide a more diverse range of character options that are new player friendly.

[Foxhound438]

We would have to figure out a new way to roll stats, since most people like rolling stats according to the internet. The only other issue I have is that odd scores getting +1 from split ASI or half feats gives builders extra flexability compared to a simple your number is the number system.

Also, it really doesn't take too long to get used to the idea that 10 is no bonus, and every 2 over that is +1. Maybe it's a little confusing at first, but it's not rocket science.

[Spacehamster]

We would have to figure out a new way to roll stats, since most people like rolling stats according to the internet. The only other issue I have is that odd scores getting +1 from split ASI or half feats gives builders extra flexability compared to a simple your number is the number system.

Also, it really doesn't take too long to get used to the idea that 10 is no bonus, and every 2 over that is +1. Maybe it's a little confusing at first, but it's not rocket science.

Roll a d10, 1 being -5, 10 being 5. :)
Or a d6 if not wanting possibility of 5 from start, 1 being -2 and 6 being 3. :)

[Tanarii]

No. Point Buy is an optional rule. It's a necessary evil because of official play.

[Spacehamster]

The whole 3-18 check a chart thing kills me every time I have to teach D&D to nee players.

Next Gen, can we just have a range of scores from -5 to +5?

Starting characters start at 0, and can spend 4 points having up to a +2 in any given stat to start. They can lower a stat by 1, to bump a stat up by one , capping at +2 at level 1.

Races no longer have stat modifiers. Their stupid anyways. We can have smart orcs and cross fit halflings if we want.
The exception being humans that get a +1 or a feat.
Or we make them better. Can fix that later.

Instead, all classes give a +1 in their most relevant stat to begin. Since that is literately what 90% of experienced players do anyways by maximizing race combos anyways. And it ensures new players won’t stink at their chosen roll. Some classes like fighters or monks you choose between Dex or Str, etc....

The high concept is to drop some unnecessary math, and provide a more diverse range of character options that are new player friendly.

Races should still have modifiers in my humble opinion, should just be an alternate rule that could remove that and do it the way you said for example. Think most ppl have a hard time seeing a 20 kilogram Level 1 halfling being as strong as a level 1 half orc clocking in at 102 kilogram. :)

[Zhorn]

Roll a d10, 1 being -5, 10 being 5. :)
Or a d6 if not wanting possibility of 5 from start, 1 being -2 and 6 being 3. :)

Two d6's. One is '+plus' the other is '-minus'. With the minimum of 1 and and a maximum of 6 this will give you your range of -5 to +5.

[BurgerBeast]

In general this sounds more like a list of your specific opinions than a set of justifiable changes. Granted, some of these changes are probably justifies me, but “I’m sick of it” isn’t the justification required.


The whole 3-18 check a chart thing kills me every time I have to teach D&D to nee players.

In my opinion this is less a problem with the game and more a problem with the people. D&D involves some referencing of material and some arithmetic. If they don’t want to reference a table to make a character, then what makes them want to reference a character sheet or ruleset to figure out which die to roll and which modifier(s) to apply.


Next Gen, can we just have a range of scores from -5 to +5?

There is sense in this, but I’m not necessarily convinced.


Races no longer have stat modifiers. Their stupid anyways. We can have smart orcs and cross fit halflings if we want.

I don’t like this idea. Stay modifiers represent statistical shifts away from averages. Ogres are stronger than halflings, on average. Any model that generates scores needs to take that into account.


The exception being humans that get a +1 or a feat.
Or we make them better. Can fix that later.

Instead, all classes give a +1 in their most relevant stat to begin.

These seems totally arbitrary. Especially since the first suggestion directly contradicts your main point. “No stat bonuses, except the ones I approve of.”


Since that is literately what 90% of experienced players do anyways by maximizing race combos anyways. And it ensures new players won’t stink at their chosen roll. Some classes like fighters or monks you choose between Dex or Str, etc....

It’s not necessarily the case that the game should change to match what 90% of it’s players already do. If they are already doing it, that’s more of an argument that it doesn’t need to change. The 10% can still do their thing. Also, for some players, choosing races with the wrong ability set to match the class can be part of the challenge and therefore fun. What’s wrong with that option?


The high concept is to drop some unnecessary math, and provide a more diverse range of character options that are new player friendly.

The last thing this society needs is less math. Games are a good way to motivate some arithmetic.

I tend to agree with Foxhound438.


Roll a d10, 1 being -5, 10 being 5. :)
Or a d6 if not wanting possibility of 5 from start, 1 being -2 and 6 being 3. :)

Well this is one of the reasons I don’t mind 3d6. The proposed method is more random than intended. Stat generation should be weighted toward the centre, so normally distributed if a dice range, and increasing costs as you increase the stat if point-buy.

As a final point, if your simplifying anyway, 0-10 is simpler than -5 to 5. Why not use 0-10 and then adjust the math to match?

[Anymage]

3-18 is one of those things you won't ever budge because it has the weight of history behind it. The good news is that it's also simple to explain to new players; you have this one set of numbers because that's how the game started and people like tradition, and a simpler derived set of numbers as the game has been streamlined over editions.

If we wanted to play D&D: Slaughter Sacred Cows edition I could think of plenty of other things I'd like to put on the chopping block. We also saw what happened when they tried getting rid of sacred cows before. As such, I don't expect it to reasonably happen. Especially because 5e is quite happy in the middle of massive popularity.

[Tanarii]

3-18 is one of those things you won't ever budge because it has the weight of history behind it. The good news is that it's also simple to explain to new players; you have this one set of numbers because that's how the game started and people like tradition, and a simpler derived set of numbers as the game has been streamlined over editions.
It's also wrong. The simpler derived numbers has been there since the beginning too.

It's much easier to explain: because the standard method of generating ability scores is 4d6 take the best 3. That generates a curve. If you don't know what a curve is I can't help you.

(Sarcasm is directed at the hypothetical player. And probably added in my head. Just to be clear.)

[Waazraath]

This seriously never bothered me in any way, nor found it difficult to explain to new players. So yeah, we can talk about everything, but (next to something that's nice traditionally) this is also something that works well and, at worst, is pretty harmless. Don't fix it if it isn't broken, afaic.

[Unavenger]

If you really want to shoot yourself in the foot at character generation, you could keep the 3d6 or 4d6b3 rolls and then refer to a table that is only used during chargen and not during the game, or you can do your -5 to +5 with something like (3d6b2)-7 or whatever.

Or you could acknowledge that ability scores are only very slightly messy and they basically work, and reckon that that's an acceptable work:messy ratio.

[HappyDaze]

I would prefer a switch to just having ability modifiers and ditching the ability scores.

I would prefer to keep ability modifiers for race but make all classes MAD. This way all (or almost all) races could still excel in all (or almost all) classes but perhaps in different ways within the class abilities. Every class should have features that use at least 3 different ability scores, and how a particular character prioritizes them should matter.

[Foxhound438]

Roll a d10, 1 being -5, 10 being 5. :)
Or a d6 if not wanting possibility of 5 from start, 1 being -2 and 6 being 3. :)

I don't think that would be a good way to do it, the current (good imo) way gives you a higher chance of stats close to the middle, with extremely high and extremely low stats being extremely rare. It kind of balances that system out, so most often you get like one or two poor stats, one or two good stats, and the rest being decent. I guess if you like rolling stats as a straight D20, that isn't an issue for you, but I have to disagree.

[elyktsorb]

I dunno can we make ability scores less of a thing? Seems kind of annoying to have to pump scores ever 4 lvls or so just for the sake of keeping up, when we could do fun stuff instead.

[ad_hoc]

No. Point Buy is an optional rule. It's a necessary evil because of official play.

Point Buy is an optional rule but Standard Array is core.

That's how we play at my table.

[Asisreo1]

Just subtract 10 and divide by 2, fractions are rounded down.

19? (19-10)/2=4.5=+4
5? (5-10)/2=-2.5=-3

[MoiMagnus]

Something I use in a homebrew D&D that works not that bad is:

[Standard table] +2/+2/+1/+1/0/0 then racial bonuses

[Rolling abilities] "2d4-4" 8 times, drop the best and worst, and put the other 6 along the 6 abilities, then add racial bonuses.

[Point-buy] 10 points with the following table, followed by racial bonuses:
-1 => -1pt
0 => 0pts
+1 => 1pt
+2 => 4pts
+3 => 9pts

(Examples of point-buy being +3/+2/0/-1/-1/-1 and +2/+2/+2/0/-1/-1)

It's not exactly the same as official D&D, but it gives results similar enough.
Rolling is slightly more random than usual (in average, one every 6 PCs will have a +4 or a -2 before racial bonuses)

[HappyDaze]

Just subtract 10 and divide by 2, fractions are rounded down.

19? (19-10)/2=4.5=+4
5? (5-10)/2=-2.5=-3

Why not:

Start at 0
Add 1d4
Subtract 1d4
Final result is Ability Modifier before racial (and perhaps class) modifiers

This gives a range of +3 to -3 before modifiers. Adjust to taste.

[HappyDaze]

Standard Array is core.

It's the only method I allow in my games.

[LtPowers]

Roll a d10, 1 being -5, 10 being 5. :)

So how do you get a 0?

-5 to +5 covers a range of 11 integers, not 10.


Powers &8^]

[Asisreo1]

Why not:

Start at 0
Add 1d4
Subtract 1d4
Final result is Ability Modifier before racial (and perhaps class) modifiers

This gives a range of +3 to -3 before modifiers. Adjust to taste.
Sounds awful tbh. The chances of getting multiple negative multipliers is way too high, it's basically a 50% chance if pre-coffee mental math is worth anything.

[HappyDaze]

Sounds awful tbh. The chances of getting multiple negative multipliers is way too high, it's basically a 50% chance if pre-coffee mental math is worth anything.

OK, then either change the first step to "Start at +1" or up the second step to "Add 1d6" instead.

Keep in mind that I abhor random character generation (I like to save the randomness for in-game instances, not for generating persistent modifiers), so it's not something I'd use in any case.

[ImproperJustice]

I think a faster way to do random stat generation in the spirit of this thread is after everyone has built their PC using the point buy method above, is to do the following:

1. Have everyone sit in a circle with their character sheet in hand (or app).

2. Have each person flip a coin. If it’s heads, write a +1 on their sheet. If it’s tails, write a -1 on their sheet.

3. From this point forward, players apply the randomly generated modified to all in game tasks so they can fully experience the joy of randomly generated stats. Seeing that random number generation at the start of play, now makes some people better than others, purely due to random number generation for the entirety of their future playtime with that character.

4. Be sure to tell the players with negative modifiers that their trials will make them better role players as they “rise above” their difficult beginnings.

[Tanarii]

3. From this point forward, players apply the randomly generated modified to all in game tasks so they can fully experience the joy of randomly generated stats. Seeing that random number generation at the start of play, now makes some people better than others, purely due to random number generation for the entirety of their future playtime with that character.

4. Be sure to tell the players with negative modifiers that their trials will make them better role players as they “rise above” their difficult beginnings.
Don't forget:

5) PCs have to die frequently, so that the weak are winnowed out. Who cares if you roll low? That character just won't live long anyway. Unless you've got really good player skill. In which case you're proven you're a superior player. Or if you don't, better luck on the next character.

[Zhorn]

Don't forget:

5) PCs have to die frequently, so that the weak are winnowed out. Who cares if you roll low? That character just won't live long anyway. Unless you've got really good player skill. In which case you're proven you're a superior player. Or if you don't, better luck on the next character.

A very important function of dungeon economies. There needs to be a steady intake of failing adventurers bringing wealth into a dungeon and not leaving in order for treasure hoards to accumulate.

[Tanarii]

Point Buy is an optional rule but Standard Array is core.

That's how we play at my table.
Yes. Roll or standard array is core. Point buy is optional. So this modification is fine and dandy for one persons homebrew, but it'll never become core. Even if we put aside that it is a sacred cows, there's a reason for this particular sacred cow.

I used standard array in my open table campaign because pretty much had to. I generally use rolling for a one shot, by which I mean a single adventure of maybe 3-5 sessions.

IMO most players prefer to roll. I have absolutely no proof to back this statement up. But I believe it anyway. :smallamused:

[Lunali]

I'm in favor of removing racial bonuses to stats. Racial bonuses make sense for establishing that a given race is typically better at some things, but PCs are atypical anyway. What really matters is how the PCs stats compare to other PCs. Having high strength isn't any more valuable to an elf barbarian than it is to an orc, why should they have to pay more for it?

[ImproperJustice]

So I am curious:

What is the mechanical difference in terms of modifiers between standard array and point by?

Standard looks like:
+2 / +2 / +1 / +1 / 0 / -1

So a base of 5.

So compared to the top of the thread, it the same as the base 4, and then becomes a base 5 once you add a +1 from your chosen class, making it about the same method, only dropping the rather superfluous 3-18 numbers.

[Ignimortis]

I'm in favor of removing racial bonuses to stats. Racial bonuses make sense for establishing that a given race is typically better at some things, but PCs are atypical anyway. What really matters is how the PCs stats compare to other PCs. Having high strength isn't any more valuable to an elf barbarian than it is to an orc, why should they have to pay more for it?

That just means that people will optimize around different racial traits, like movement speed or orcish Savage Critical. Unless you turn races into pure flavour "skins", you'll still have optimal and suboptimal races.

[Hael]

From a role playing perspective, I have a problem with balance around standard array, and that’s the fact that almost every class is going to have int as a dump stat.

8 intelligence is how to put it, the r word lvl of cognition, yet everyone plays their character as if they were tactical geniuses instead. Unless Of course you are a half orc, in which case people play him like the hulk.

It’s pretty immersion breaking. Ditto for cha (which is supposed to be leadership, magnetism, and looks).

The mechanical benefits should be decoupled from how you play your character. I mean I’ve always found it weird that the creepy warlock should be the face of the party.

[Kane0]

The whole 3-18 check a chart thing kills me every time I have to teach D&D to nee players.

Next Gen, can we just have a range of scores from -5 to +5?

Starting characters start at 0, and can spend 4 points having up to a +2 in any given stat to start. They can lower a stat by 1, to bump a stat up by one , capping at +2 at level 1.

Races no longer have stat modifiers. Their stupid anyways. We can have smart orcs and cross fit halflings if we want.
The exception being humans that get a +1 or a feat.
Or we make them better. Can fix that later.

Instead, all classes give a +1 in their most relevant stat to begin. Since that is literately what 90% of experienced players do anyways by maximizing race combos anyways. And it ensures new players won’t stink at their chosen roll. Some classes like fighters or monks you choose between Dex or Str, etc....

The high concept is to drop some unnecessary math, and provide a more diverse range of character options that are new player friendly.

Alright lets kill off some sacred cows!

Firstly the stats themselves. Constitution gets swapped out for Discipline, Wisdom gets changed to Intuition. Rename Strength to 'Might' or 'Physique' and Intelligence to 'Acumen'. So now we have two physical, two mental and two social stats.
Then we get rid of the score implying modifier. Score becomes the modifier, which can go from -5 to +5 or +10, depending on how the edition wants to handle number scaling. Update array and point buy to match.

If you want to kill an additional Sacred Cow, cut the stat bonus from races and replace with more racial features.

[Asisreo1]

From a role playing perspective, I have a problem with balance around standard array, and that’s the fact that almost every class is going to have int as a dump stat.

8 intelligence is how to put it, the r word lvl of cognition, yet everyone plays their character as if they were tactical geniuses instead. Unless Of course you are a half orc, in which case people play him like the hulk.

It’s pretty immersion breaking. Ditto for cha (which is supposed to be leadership, magnetism, and looks).

The mechanical benefits should be decoupled from how you play your character. I mean I’ve always found it weird that the creepy warlock should be the face of the party.
I dunno, I think you gotta be pretty stupid to be an adventurer.

It's interesting that they gave the wizard, a very highly regarded class, the spellcasting mod with the least impact with mechanics. It contrasts with spellcasters who have common saving throw abilities tied to their spellcasting or to their sociability. In this regard, wizards have that as a bit of a negative. They then have to decide whether they want the AC boost of dex, the HP boost & concentration of con, or actually lean into their only other saving throw proficiency.

It also makes multiclassing into wizard the hardest thing to do, as you have to sacrifice some of the more useful ability scores just to get in. If you dumped int, you're not becoming a wizard for a long time.

Multiclassing out is easier, but you're stuck with the pretty bad save proficiencies. It's actually best to multiclass into a Wis spellcaster like Cleric or Druid, but cleric is really the only dip that's best imo.

[Ignimortis]

8 intelligence is how to put it, the r word lvl of cognition, yet everyone plays their character as if they were tactical geniuses instead. Unless Of course you are a half orc, in which case people play him like the hulk.

Except it isn't. It's a slightly below average level, not an actual impairment. You probably know at least a few people with what would be described as 8 INT IRL. It's not gonna be Hulk-speak, and they can form coherent and even workable plans, because greater intelligence doesn't really make you cunning. In fact, a typical example of high INT is an absent-minded person who is very good with logic and abstract thinking, but quite poor at applying it consistently or formulating clever plans on the spot.

[Morty]

5E could get rid of attributes entirely and be better for it. Since that's rather unlikely even in a hypothetical 5.5 or 6E, in the meantime people should consider not letting attributes decide characters' personality traits. Or generally act like they're a realistic representation of anything in particular.

[HappyDaze]

From a role playing perspective, I have a problem with balance around standard array, and that’s the fact that almost every class is going to have int as a dump stat.

8 intelligence is how to put it, the r word lvl of cognition, yet everyone plays their character as if they were tactical geniuses instead. Unless Of course you are a half orc, in which case people play him like the hulk.

It’s pretty immersion breaking. Ditto for cha (which is supposed to be leadership, magnetism, and looks).

The mechanical benefits should be decoupled from how you play your character. I mean I’ve always found it weird that the creepy warlock should be the face of the party.

Use the Int 8 to explain why the PCs seem to forget things between sessions. Use the Cha 8 to explain why the PCs tend to treat NPCs as if they are not "real people" when interacting with them.

[Mikal]

It's the only method I allow in my games.

God that sounds boring

[HappyDaze]

God that sounds boring

You get your excitement from ability score generation? All methods sounds boring to me; the non-boring part comes from play.

[KorvinStarmast]

We would have to figure out a new way to roll stats, since most people like rolling stats according to the internet. The only other issue I have is that odd scores getting +1 from split ASI or half feats gives builders extra flexability compared to a simple your number is the number system.

Also, it really doesn't take too long to get used to the idea that 10 is no bonus, and every 2 over that is +1. Maybe it's a little confusing at first, but it's not rocket science.


No. Point Buy is an optional rule. It's a necessary evil because of official play. Standard Array sux; it's off by one (too low) or by three based on what the roll averages are. There's some discussion on that here. (For ability scores, the standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Using the point-buy system yields scores in this same basic range. But, according to AnyDice, the average rolls for 4d6-drop-one are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 — slightly better and, crucially, providing the likely possibility of an 18 to start (with a racial bonus of +2) and a 40% chance of starting with at least one ability score at 19 or 20.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/109838/22566)

For ability scores, the standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Using the point-buy system yields scores in this same basic range. But, according to AnyDice, the average rolls for 4d6-drop-one are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 — slightly better and, crucially, providing the likely possibility of an 18 to start (with a racial bonus of +2) and a 40% chance of starting with at least one ability score at 19 or 20. If they wanted to prevent an 18 at the start, move the 16 to a 15 and boost the 9 to a 10.
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 gives a +7 -1 for +6 net.
15, 14 13 12 10 10. (+6) Same net bonuses.

Point Buy makes PC customization work better.

Rolling is the default. I'll say that again, rolling is the default.

Races should still have modifiers in my humble opinion It has the weight of tradition, but now that we can actually improve stats with ASIs, which we could not do before the WoTC games began, I wonder at the utility of this whole scheme.

If we wanted to play D&D: Slaughter Sacred Cows edition I could think of plenty of other things I'd like to put on the chopping block. Yeah. Getting halflings out of the game would be a great first step. Removing gnomes another. :smallyuk:

It's much easier to explain: because the standard method of generating ability scores is 4d6 take the best 3. That's the default. :smallsmile:

Or you could acknowledge that ability scores are only very slightly messy and they basically work, and reckon that that's an acceptable work:messy ratio. millions of people seem to enjoy the game despite the OP's objection.

I dunno can we make ability scores less of a thing? Play a different game, maybe? :smallbiggrin:

I'm in favor of removing racial bonuses to stats. ? I'd like to see this. Three floating +1's to customize a PC.

From a role playing perspective, I have a problem with balance around standard array, and that’s the fact that almost every class is going to have int as a dump stat. And the standard array is lowball anyway.

[Democratus]

From a role playing perspective, I have a problem with balance around standard array, and that’s the fact that almost every class is going to have int as a dump stat.

8 intelligence is how to put it, the r word lvl of cognition, yet everyone plays their character as if they were tactical geniuses instead. Unless Of course you are a half orc, in which case people play him like the hulk.

It’s pretty immersion breaking. Ditto for cha (which is supposed to be leadership, magnetism, and looks).

The mechanical benefits should be decoupled from how you play your character. I mean I’ve always found it weird that the creepy warlock should be the face of the party.

Weird. I see STR and CHA as the dump more often than INT.

As for Warlocks being the 'face', we fixed that by making Warlock an INT-based class as it always should have been. :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

As for Warlocks being the 'face', we fixed that by making Warlock an INT-based class as it always should have been. :smallcool: Yay.

OP's idea: by itself not a bad idea. I like the extra maneuvers for more INT, since INT has to do with memory and such ... but I'd have to play test it to see how I liked it.
For a feat less game, though, I wonder if that makes the Battle Master always the best Fighter choice since the Fighter has 7 ASI.

Hmmmm.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I dunno can we make ability scores less of a thing? Seems kind of annoying to have to pump scores ever 4 lvls or so just for the sake of keeping up, when we could do fun stuff instead.

5E could get rid of attributes entirely and be better for it.
Yup (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/t6ZY1vfhN)! It's not even very hard-- my version adds a bit of extra detail and smooths out scaling, but you could replace "ability score modifier" with "proficiency bonus +1" for class features, items, and anything you're proficient in and it'll work out pretty decently.


That just means that people will optimize around different racial traits, like movement speed or orcish Savage Critical. Unless you turn races into pure flavour "skins", you'll still have optimal and suboptimal races.
Yeah, but those are interesting things to optimize around. Visible things, distinctive things. "+1 Strength, +2 Constitution" goes on your sheet once and you forget about it, and after a few levels it's insignificant anyway. And the difference between 15 Strength and 16 Strength isn't really noticable. All Wizards are going to have a good Int, all Clerics are going to have a good Wis, and 1 or 2 point swing isn't going to change the feel of the character at all. Something like Savage Critical, on the other hand, is distinctive. It's unique. It's a (relatively) active ability that makes you feel like a savage berserker. It means that a half-orc Clerc will play differently than a dwarven or elven one, even though their stats are approximately the same.

To paraphrase the signature of someone who used to post here, "active abilities are always better. You're not just playing a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through challenges."

[Sneak Dog]

It is an option to look back to the original cow for inspiration:
Remove strength to melee attack and damage.
Remove dexterity to AC, initiative and ranged attack and damage
Remove constitution to HP
Remove intelligence/wisdom/charisma to save DC's and class features.

give all adventurers a +3 to weapon attacks, damage, initiative, non-heavy-armour AC, hit points per level and save DC's, and whatever class features call for an ability bonus.

When you get an ASI, you get either a feat, two half-feats (those that grant a +1 to an ability score) or a +1 to one of the following, up to a +5:
Not-heavy-armour-AC, melee attack and damage,
Not-heavy-armour-AC, initiative, ranged attack and ranged damage,
hit points per level,
Your save DC's and class features calling upon wisdom/intelligence/charisma.

There. Simple, and balanced enough for a first go. With this, if you want to make a dumb wizard or incredibely smart fighter, you may have some things to explain to the GM, but you're not killing off your potential in the combat pillar.

[Joe the Rat]

The best way to kill sacred cows is to spin off a new system.

DCC changed a few names, lumped Wis (as casting) and Cha into Personality, and doubled the number of dice sizes needed for play.

Savage Kingdoms dropped the stat numbers entirely in favor of modifiers, made a few dozen other tweaks, and ditched everything but the d20.


For a hypothetical system:

Fudge dice (basically a d3 that goes from -1 to +1) would work nicely. Keeping with the "preferred" ranges, 3dF gets you a -3 to +3 with about 3/4 of results in the -1 to +1 range, 11% +2 3.7% +3. bump that to 4dFk3, you've got a fair shot at good results. If you want to extend your starter to the full range, 4dF or 5dFk4 can work. It's roughly 3x as likely to get the "18" or "3" result as 3d6.

From a design side, if we are following 5e expectations, use the 4dFk3, then plug in some +1s for choices (I'm liking Race, Class, free choice), with a +4 starting cap.

[Mikal]

You get your excitement from ability score generation? All methods sounds boring to me; the non-boring part comes from play.

It adds a chaos and uncertainty factor. It can make you rethink how your character interacts with the world as they have abilities stronger or weaker than you expected.

Building a concept and a character is half the fun.
Making everyone a cookie cutter clone is boring and annoying.

You can have excitement from both

[HappyDaze]

It adds a chaos and uncertainty factor. It can make you rethink how your character interacts with the world as they have abilities stronger or weaker than you expected.

Building a concept and a character is half the fun.
Making everyone a cookie cutter clone is boring and annoying.

You can have excitement from both

I disagree with pretty much every part of that. I despise random generation but have no problem with random instances once the game is in play. I also have no issue with differentiating clones; identical stats don't make for identical characters. Regardless, I dont find anything exciting about game prep, whether as a player or a GM. For me, the excitement is found only in play.

[Mikal]

I disagree with pretty much every part of that. I despise random generation but have no problem with random instances once the game is in play. I also have no issue with differentiating clones; identical stats don't make for identical characters. Regardless, I dont find anything exciting about game prep, whether as a player or a GM. For me, the excitement is found only in play.

That’s nice. Excitement is subjective so you can disagree as much as you want. Doesn’t change what I said though regarding boredom/cookie cutter characters

[Willie the Duck]

The whole 3-18 check a chart thing kills me every time I have to teach D&D to nee players.

Next Gen, can we just have a range of scores from -5 to +5?

As a suggestion, how about just have the actual rolled stats in a very small part of the characters sheet (perhaps alongside XP and call it the 'development' section) and keep the attributes mods in the forefront?

As strange as it sounds, the whole 'odd stats as armor and MC prereqs' and 'looking for a good half-feat' or 'should I get a +2 in my main stat or even out these two secondary stats' give stats some added... mechanical heft as it were. Stuff to do with them. Knobs and levers, as it were.

If not that, I'm down with ditching stats (or at least stats that do much) altogether. They have meandered down the editions without a clear reason why they specifically exist. I can see a version of the game with classes, levels, and skills, but no attributes (because why not?).

[Asisreo1]

I don't think an ability modifier should be able to go lower than -2 with more than a 10% chance. That might even be a bit too much.

Standard arrays should definitely not have a -2 in their options. I don't want to be so one-gimmick that if I dump str, I'm basically guaranteed to drop even my essential equipment.

[Snails]

FWIW, I love rolling dice for one-shot adventures and similar, while I despise rolling dice for long campaigns.

What we found is "4d6 with cards, no replacement, in order, one swap" gives most of the advantages of rolling while severely restricting the likelihood of serious negatives appearing.

1. Take the 24 1(Ace)-2-3-4-5-6 cards from a standard deck, and shuffle
2. Deal into 6 piles
3. Declare order of stats
4. Reveal, in that order, adding 3 of the 4 as your "rolls"*
5. You may swap two numbers after all are revealed
6. If you really hate what you got, you can take standard array instead



*yes, some lunatics do not always pick the high 3 cards