Thoughts on my char gen proposal?

[Ryuken]

My table has shuffled over the summer, and I am considering a reboot with some rule tweaks for character generation. My proposal is thus:

Disallowing Tasha’s rule mods. Assume that this is covered in session 0 and 100% agreeable.

Use racial rules as in PHB. PC creation follows these steps, in order listed.

Stat gen as best of 4d6 but declared, as in “this is for Str <roll> now Cha <roll>” etc.

To qualify for a class, must meet minimum ability scores, as in multiclassing, but at 11.

Any one score with a negative ability modifier can be upgraded to a 0 modifier at the expense of HD downgrade, min d4.

Once class is chosen, PC gets +1 increase in ability modifiers matching class save proficiencies. ASIs in these abilities are not capped but limitless.

Backgrounds as in PHB.

Multiclass must meet PHB minimums and:
• HD downgrade still applies to new class HD
• No ability increases for new class
• All abilities capped at 20 or current level if 21+

My reasoning is rooted in me being a grognard (playing since 81, BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3.5e, 5e). I like randomness and disdain min/max & OP-focused builders. I like my races to fit fantasy tropes, like you can have a max-roll strength elf, but the max-roll strength half-orc will be always stronger, etc. I also like PCs to play to their abilities – playing a Wis 6 cleric or Str 8 fighter may be great for RP antics but has been distracting or party handicapping at my tables. I have no problem with a few rerolls to get a better mix of scores for a desired class, but PCs don’t need to be superlative, just average or better for their initial class.

I’m also a fan of having a PC theme. Why did your X class PC take 1 level in Y class? Just for Z feature? Then – no. Multiclassing should be for exceptional PCs and have some table/RP justification. I believe there also should be some sort of additional handicap for multiclassing or added benefits for long-haul single classes.

As portrayed in LotR movies, I’d say Gandalf is some sort of martial/magic multi which is why Aragorn (1-class martial) swings a sword better and Saruman (1-class magic) flings spells better than Gandalf. (included for theme reference, not wanting to start a LotR debate)

What I’d like feedback on is if this is too harsh or too generous and critical tweaks. My tables have rarely had power gamers or progressed from level 1 to level 20, more like ending around 12, so I’m interested in potential abuse or wonkiness in 3rd & 4th tier play.

[titi]

Stat gen as best of 4d6 but declared, as in “this is for Str <roll> now Cha <roll>” etc.


This is a bad idea because you're restricting the class choices of the players to how lucky they are

[NontheistCleric]

In my opinion, this is entirely too harsh. If people wanted to play with rules like these, they wouldn't be playing 5e. Anyone coming from a normal 5e game is going to receive an unpleasant shock, because they will be used to being able to build and play the character concepts they want, not what the dice dictate.

If you want people not to abuse the rules, not to optimize too much, and to keep their characters within certain archetypal limits, that is all fine. It isn't wrong to play that way. However, I think that could be much less jarringly achieved by simply talking to your players and making these expectations known, instead of trying to recreate 1e with houserules.

[Keltest]

Im all for rolling stats in order and picking class based on that, but your multiclassing rules are too harsh, and nobody is going to accept that "set stat to 10" rule because dropping the hit die like that is basically catastrophic for everyone, especially if youre only getting like a +1 or 2 bonus out of it.

Also, 5e doesnt go above level 20 without houserules to begin with.

[False God]

If you prefer an older-style game, just play an older edition.

If I was offered to join your game, I would decline. I have little interest in excessive randomness with no benefit to the game other than getting to suicide my character until I get die rolls I like.

[Ryuken]

I appreciate the feedback so far, but some of what I was looking for has been missing. I could easily play a different system because I have those rules, but my current group has more familiarity with the 5e structure and that's what they wish to use. They're also open to houserules. As I stated in the post, assume that this proposal has been discussed and accepted by the entire playing group.

If it's too harsh, what would make it less so? Telling me to play something different isn't conducive to my question. I understand that personal preferences (mine included) are at play, but if you could look at the proposal objectively, within the parameters defined, and propose alternatives, that would be helpful to me.

[JNAProductions]

Another issue is that Save Proficiencies don't always match Primary Attributes.

A Great Weapon Fighter in Heavy Armor can use Strength and Constitution.
A Sharpshooter Fighter in Light Armor doesn't need Strength, but would LOVE to be able to raise Dexterity past the normal cap.

Also, this means that at level 12, a luckily rolled (17 with a +2 Str race, or 18 with a +1 Str race) Heavy Fighter could have a Strength as high as 28. Or a Wizard could have a 26 in Intelligence.

[False God]

The HP downgrade is absolutely not worth it for the stat bump. You KNOW your system is going to generate some bad rolls, why provide an option to counter that, aren't the bad rolls the point?

Rolling per each stat is just going to force players into classes or roles they don't like, and just like older editions players will start jumping their characters off a cliff to get a shot at making a new one.

Your die declaration rules and MC rules and stat bonuses based on class are going to make min/maxing stronger, not lesser. If you don't want more min/maxing, I'd drop all those.

[JNAProductions]

A system I've seen used is "You have a pool of X d6s, X usually being 24-30. Assign at least three d6 to each stat, but any remaining d6s can be added to a stat. Then, roll your d6s, taking the highest three for any given ability score, and that's your score."

So, with, say, 27d6, you could do for a Wizard...

Strength 3d6
Dexterity 5d6
Constitution 5d6
Intelligence 6d6
Wisdom 4d6
Charisma 4d6

You're LIKELY to get the stats you want, but randomness still plays a chance.

[NontheistCleric]

I would say it's fine to have some kind of randomness in the stat generation. Others with better math skills than me can probably advise you better on that.

When it comes to all the other stuff you want, though... That's all about communicating and coming to agreements with players. If you don't want them to play overpowered characters, tell them. If you want character concepts that fall within classic fantasy archetypes, tell them. Just use the normal rules. The beauty is that when they can build whatever they want, if they come to an agreement with you, they will also be building what you want.

Otherwise they will be fighting against your houserules and you will be fighting against their fighting, and the likelihood that everyone is satisfied with the experience will decrease.

[Leon]

If the people with whom you are going to play are fine with it use it. They are the people to ask not random people on the internet

[Witty Username]

This is a bad idea because you're restricting the class choices of the players to how lucky they are

Coward.

In seriousness, this is actually my preferred method of character gen personally, I like rolled stats specifically because it creates chaos in my non-esentials, "organic method" as I am used to calling it highlights this further, because even if the change is small it is very hard to justify a poor Con for example.
Like a 16 in str and dex, with a 10 con is an insane array in standard roll or point by, but it is fun and allows for things that such thinking does not normally allow.

That being said, I don't use this when I am DMing, and will only do it as a player when I am certain the party doesn't really need me to do anything in particular, if we need a cleric, I will do a cleric, and I will put my best roll in Wis. It is not for everyone, or even most players, as much as find joy in it. Ask the table about that one, if they like the idea go for it
--
well,
does Gitpg do in chat rolling still?
d20
Edit: guess not, or I don't remember the command, but let's do a test roll and walk through it
Str 8, Dex 16, Con 11, Int 14, Wis 13, Cha 11
So,
I qualify for rogue, fighter, bard, sorcerer, wizard, cleric, druid, ranger and warlock
Paladin and Barbarian are out. unless, if I bumped str to a +0 would I have a 10 or 11, either way a terrible idea with this set.

First impressions, at this point, so I take it a reroll is inbuilt if no score is 11+? or would they be required to take a HD to force the array to be playable. Apart from that, I think the promotion of a bad score is almost always not worth it, unless you get like a 4 in con, then uping to 10(11?) is probably too good to ignore


I think I would play a rogue,
as I understand it I would get
Str 8, Dex 17, Con 11, Int 15, Wis 13, Cha 11?

on the subject of scores, is MP losing the initial bump of the 2 +1s, or all ASI increases? I will withhold judgement as I am still mulling my opinions on that.

Race, I feel like the best options would be something like halfling or goblin to shore up that con, or elf because it is very good with rogue. but the array is strong enough to allow stranger picks like tiefling or half-orc. and Variant human is still the best option.

A quick note to Tasha's, rolled stats mostly make the Tasha's mod shifting irrelevant anyway, as the variance of rolling is greater than race mods. I do find if you don't want to be in a position of having to make a weak array effective by using race selection as a solvable problem, then I would use it. But I have found it changes actual player behavior very little. - That is all I will say on the subject, I mostly just want to alleviate fears about using it in game, not have the 50+ page thread closure, again.

So race, I think I will pick Wood elf, +2 dex, +1 Wis and some good stuff for rogue like access to elvan accuracy dark-vision, longbow proficiency, increased movement speed.

This will get:
Str 8, Dex 19 (20 at 4th with elvan accuracy), Con 11, Int 15, Wis 14, Cha 11

Oh, dex is scary. So AC, at 1st level this character will hit an AC of 16 (fine, it happens, and not that high) but AC won't stop there. as Dex is uncapped on rogue this will keep increasing with each ASI, I think I may still want to grab a +1 con and something like Resilent (Con). But the run will be some thing like a Dex of 30 at high levels, and an AC of 22 for this rogue, assuming nothing else. Heavy armor still being capped at AC 18 is not good, as this means that dex builds will have higher AC for more benefits.
This may need revising, Dex gets alot, it may need reduction or the caps need to be rethought

and on we need a background,
eh, their backgrounds, how about folk hero. no notes

MPs being capped at 20 does mean that some classes will just be better than multiclasses, and not in a specialization vs generalist kinda way.
A rogue vs a rogue fighter, will be a better rogue and fighter than a fighter/rogue
I feel like this isn't intentional based on the description. I would have the caps be based on the first class and call it at that, or an up front cost like an XP penalty. If the goal is to make it cost something.

[Atranen]

I think most of the feedback you're getting is too cynical. It depends on your group of course. I played in a campaign with some folks from an AL group. The GM was similarly a grognard, wanted to keep 5E for familiarity, but changed things up. We did 3d6 in order.

The players, besides myself, only had experience with 5e. And they were totally on board.

So, some specifics:

1) disallowing Tasha's is 100% the way to go imo (possibily allowing less broken things case by case).

2) PHB race mods worked for a long time, no issues here.

3) I don't see the benefit of declaring before each 4d6 roll, rather than just in order, but not a big deal.

4) Qualifying for a class is good.

5) I think dropping a HD for a bonus to an attribute is too steep a cost, unless you're playing very low power levels. If you called at 3 it might be worth it. (It's always worth it if that score is CON).

6) The bonus to class abilities helps the randomness. I might prefer "pick from one of the two and get +2 to that score".

7) Roleplaying justifications for classes and multi classes are great imo.

8) PHB backgrounds are good. Some players might like to defined custom ones too.

If any players are really set on a particular class, then you could try 4d6, swap 2. That way their best ability will be in their prime requisite.

But if the players are on board with this kind of randomness, they'll likely be ok letting the dice fall where they may and picking from there.

Good luck with your table, it sounds like a great game.

[Xervous]

Echoing the save proficiency weirdness, it’s not going to match what the class is trying to do all the time.

Pre 3e worked with random stats due to stats doing less and there being higher character turnover.

Expect to not see classes that desire two ability scores. Expect most characters to be casters, and the default for a low stat character to be Moon Druid.

[RSP]

I’m not sure what you’re proposing fits your intent. If you want PCs to fit a RP theme, then I’d suggest working with Players to achieve the themes they want to play.

Random character gen is not very likely to lead to the PC theme they’ve got in their head.



Stat gen as best of 4d6 but declared, as in “this is for Str <roll> now Cha <roll>” etc.

Once class is chosen, PC gets +1 increase in ability modifiers matching class save proficiencies. ASIs in these abilities are not capped but limitless.


I like randomness and disdain min/max & OP-focused builders…

I also like PCs to play to their abilities – playing a Wis 6 cleric or Str 8 fighter may be great for RP antics but has been distracting or party handicapping at my tables.

I’m also a fan of having a PC theme.

These character gen means will only lead to min/max PCs, in my opinion, when Players don’t roll lucky enough to play the theme they want

If I initially wanted to play a Wizard character a certain way, but roll well on Str and Con but low on Int, and I can boost Str and Con over 20 in this game, I’m playing a Fighter with 20+ Str.

You’ve only incentivized min/maxing by having this system.

I’d chose which is more important: random character gen, or PC themes/RP. I don’t see those two things easily going together.

But you can very much work with Players on what theme they want to play and build that way; or have a fun time with Players playing characters they weren’t expecting due to randomness.

[Frogreaver]

Love it at least for a specific campaign. I’m a Big fan of experimentation with character creation systems. The same ideas don’t need reused every-time.

IMO. Some people are just too stuck on maintaining the status quo - which is why you see arguments that the change will advantage or disadvantage particular characters - which IMO is the entire point.

[da newt]

If I understand your char gen rules correctly it goes like this:
1 - pick a race including racial ASIs and abilities per PHB
2 - generate rolled stats in order, get what you get, don't pitch a fit
3 - pick a class based on your rolled stats, add ASIs based on class chosen
4 - add a background

As a player this is a little restrictive as my choice for character class is narrowed by the luck of the die - my agency is limited, but if your Players want to lean into the idea that randomness is a cool part of the char gen process and they might not be able to pick which class to play if the rolls don't go their way - sure it could be fun.

I'd re-order your process so stat rolling is first, then race and class can be chosen based on the PC's starting stats, otherwise the gnome might roll very hi ST and the 1/2 orc could roll crap ST etc.

[Xervous]

The biggest thing I’d like to emphasize again is that this will yield more casters than other classes, which feels a bit off for something that is being pitched as grognard appeal. 35% odds for throwing a 14+ base STR, 73% odds for throwing at least one 14+ casting stat, ~25/35 of those STR rolls will also have an accompanying cast stat roll, ~26/73 of those cast stat rolls will have an accompanying STR roll.

[da newt]

Stat Roll Chance Ratio
3 0.08% 1:1296
4 0.31% 4:1296
5 0.77% 10:1296
6 1.62% 21:1296
7 2.93% 38:1296
8 4.78% 62:1296
9 7.02% 91:1296
10 9.41% 122:1296
11 11.42% 148:1296
12 12.89% 167:1296
13 13.27% 172:1296
14 12.35% 160:1296
15 10.11% 131:1296
16 7.25% 94:1296
17 4.17% 54:1296
18 1.62% 21:1296

with the best of 3 from 4d6 you get a 13% chance of rolling 16 or above, 35.5% chance of 14 or better, and 61.7% chance at 12 or more. Just some data I found interesting ...

[Skrum]

As others have said, this needs to be a conversation with your players, and if they're good with a very punishing, potentially RNG-based character that's far weaker than other characters at the table, then go forth. Have a blast.

That said, my assessment is you're barking up the wrong tree. It sounds like you're trying to create a more organic, narrative-based world and want the characters to reflect that. If your players are down for that vision, you shouldn't need to make a ton of rules about it. They're just gonna do it. If they aren't, well, you've got deeper Session 0 type problems that making these rules aren't going to solve.

I see you wanting to make a rich narrative that isn't derailed by a ton of distractions about best-in-slot, most optimized choice nonsense. Framed like that, making a bunch of crunchy rules to make sure people don't get hung up on crunchy rules...see what I mean? The real solution here is talking to players, finding out what kind of game they want to play, presenting to them what kind of game YOU like to play, and going from there.

Also, just point of fact, some optimizers are ALSO very good RP's. And even more to the point, LOTS of character concepts involve the character being exceptionally competent (kind of the pretense of the game, isn't it?)....which probably means understanding the mechanics of the game and building a character accordingly. Optimizing is not at odds with narrative, or at least it doesn't have to be.

My final word? Let people make the characters they want, as the rules allow. Getting to play the character you want to play is an underrated aspect of enjoyment, IMO. I need to *want* to pretend to be the character, yah know? And wonky, random character generation forcing someone in to their 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice or whatever is a recipe for dissatisfaction. There are a billion ways to make your narrative and world work they way you want during play. But let players make good, 1st choice characters.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I'm gonna start off with two important things:

1) I am an optimizer to the extreme. If I'm optimizing for speed, I'll make a Tabaxi Fighter/Monk/Barbarian without any care in the world for why I'm those classes in an rp sense. I tend to see characters as builds first, RP potential second, and my thoughts on character creation rules reflect that.

2) I ADORE randomness. Give me a wild magic sorcerer and a Wand of Wonder any day of the week. Put a Deck of Many Things in front of me, and I WILL draw from it, even if the entire party tries to stop me. And when it eventually kills my character, I will cackle with glee as they die cause the randomness of it all is fun. I have absolutely gotten several of characters killed due to my love of wild magic and the deck of many things...DMs don't give me the deck anymore. TT-TT


So, for your character creation rules...I like them. Now, if your table doesn't love randomness, or they're not as much into making things a bit more hardcore, let them roll for their ability scores and put them where ever they like. But personally, I'd be fine with declaring "This is for X ability score" and rolling 4d6. Simply cause it can make an interesting character. Also, keep in mind that saves do not match a class' favored ability scores. I would base that off of their multiclass requirements instead.


That said, I'm not as much of a fan of the multiclassing rules. You're wanting to avoid "min/maxing and OP builds", have an additional handicap for multiclassing, and you want to restrict multiclassing based on vague "RP reasons". I can tell you right now, your rules won't do much to prevent what you're trying to stop. Gonna go through them one at a time:



• No ability increases for new class


This is the harshest of the bunch, and I'd say the one that needs to be removed the most. All it will do is shut down actual characters, and remove RP potential via character creation. It won't do a darn thing against min/maxing or "OP-builds, since they generally only take 1 or 2 levels anyway. Like...the person playing a Fighter 2 / Wizard X won't care if they can't get ASIs off their second class. It just means they have to start as a Wizard instead of a Fighter, and they get what they want anyway.

Meanwhile an actual multiclass build, like a Devotion Paladin 6 / Celestial Warlock X gets unfairly targeted. Despite that being a really, really, REALLY good RP multiclass build there. And you can't honestly tell me "Paladin that's so devoted to their deity that they manage to make a pact with them for more magic" has no narrative potential.




• HD downgrade still applies to new class HD


I know a lot of people are saying this one is too harsh, but I think its actually fine. Most multiclass builds either have a small dip into other classes before focusing on a primary class, or they take classes that mesh really well together. In either case, the HD downgrade isn't actually going to hurt them. Going back to the Fighter 2 / Wizard X from above, they either get all the HP they want, or they lose out on 6 max HP by starting as a Wizard. Sure, it'll sting in the short term, but 6 HP doesn't matter in the long term.

And in some cases, like the Cleric/Monk or Monk/Druid, it won't do anything at all to harm them.



• All abilities capped at 20 or current level if 21+


So, on the one hand, I can see why you made the rule, and I think its a very fair rule to have. On the other hand, I don't actually see this rule coming into play that often. At least, not in the level range you're planning to play at. If you were going all the way to level 20, then it'd matter, and I'd still say this is a perfectly fine rule and a perfectly fine restriction. As it currently stands, the only way you'd see this rule take effect is if someone a 16 or higher and has a race that has a +2 to the relevant stat.

Most multiclass builds give up at least 1 ASI due to their level distribution, and they generally take at least one feat over an ASI. As such, most multiclass builds are running on a single ASI boost till levels 12 or 14, at which point they finally get a 20 in their main stat. Of course, Fighters do throw that curve off a little bit, since they get a bonus ASI at level 6...but even then, I don't think you'll see this rule come up often.

Still, a good rule to have just in case someone does get an 18 in their primary stat and chooses a proper race. All in all, I think its fine.




I’m also a fan of having a PC theme. Why did your X class PC take 1 level in Y class? Just for Z feature? Then – no. Multiclassing should be for exceptional PCs and have some table/RP justification. I believe there also should be some sort of additional handicap for multiclassing or added benefits for long-haul single classes.


I know a lot of DMs who have this rule. I play with a lot of DMs that use this rule. I still manage to make BS, OP, and silly multiclass builds. Why? Because a decent writer can justify almost anything. Only an idiot will tell you "I wanna be a Fighter because I want Action Surge". If they're smart, they'll have worked that into their background in advance, or play into the RP of "I'm a wizard, but I'm wanting to learn from our frontline guy how to better survive in the frontline. How about they teach me a few things during our downtime period."

The only time I didn't get away with it was when I flat out told my DM "I wanna dip into Cleric as a Wizard cause Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard is an amazing class combo". DM said no. I then proceeded to make a Hexblade Warlock/Creation Bard instead by spinning a backstory where my creation bard stumbled across a special magic item unique to his world that granted Hexblade powers.

He adored it and allowed it. Despite the fact that Hexblade dips are the number one example people point tk when they talk about optimizers taking dips into classes just for class abilities.

TL;DR: The "This has to be RP motivated" rule will only stop someone who has 0 imagination or writing abilities. Or it has to be enforced so harshly that multiclassing may as well be banned.

As for additional handicaps...I mean, I don't think they'll need any. You could allow single classed characters to gain access to a higher level ability. Like...a single classed wizard gets access to Spell Mastery at level 11, and a Paladin gains their aura buff. I tend to prefer buffing over punishing.




What I’d like feedback on is if this is too harsh or too generous and critical tweaks. My tables have rarely had power gamers or progressed from level 1 to level 20, more like ending around 12, so I’m interested in potential abuse or wonkiness in 3rd & 4th tier play.

That really sums it up for my critiques. As for potential abuse...ehh...The only class combo that stands out to me as being a lot stronger than the rest in late Tier 2 and early Tier 3 are Paladin multiclasses, especially Paladin with any full caster thrown onto it. They end up with a LOT more spell slots and utility than a normal Paladin, and a LOT more survivability than a full caster. And none of your multiclass rules can really stop them on their own.*

You might also run into an issue with Coffeelocks.

However, there's a really easy and simple way to deal with both of those problems at the same time. Just run full adventuring days instead of small, 5-minute encounters, and make Long Resting difficult in areas where its not safe to sleep. I tend to run with Xanathar's rules for skipping Long Rests, and I do a pretty harsh reading of resting rules:

- ANY form of combat or spell casting breaks your long rest. It doesn't matter if the combat encounter only lasted a single round or 100. If combat happens, Long Rest is ruined. If you cast a spell using a spell slot, long rest is also ruined. I am willing to allow Rituals to be cast during a Long Rest though. If only because I'm a nice DM.

- Sleep and Long Rests are separate things. You do not need to sleep during a Long Rest if you have a racial or class feature that lets you ignore sleeping, but you still need a Long Rest if you want to avoid making saves against Exhaustion. I also start the Con Save DC for exhaustion at 12 instead of 10, and I keep the compounding +2 increase to the DC for every skipped Long Rest.

Those two rules tend to keep things like Coffeelocks and the Long Rest classes in line. Because they can't easily take a Long Rest whenever they want, and the Coffeelock can;t simply chain Short Rests without a serious penalty. Of course Celestial Warlocks could use Greater Restoration to get around it...but I also don't hand out a lot of gold to my players...so the material component costs are typically very valuable.

- Paladins need Charisma and Strength, so they easily meet all requirements for Charisma casters

- Paladins generally stop taking Paladin levels entirely after level 5 or 6, so the HD won't hurt them

- Depending on their rolls, and how they build their class, they may never need an ASI boost outside of the one they get at level 4

- Its comically easy to justify a multiclassed Paladin in this version via RP. I already mentioned the Paladin/Celestial Warlock. But Wild Magic Sorcerer is just sitting there with its vague "You might have gotten this magic from a surprise magical explosion, being blessed by a fey, marked by a demon, walked too close to a magical portal, or you sneezed into a potion at just the right time" subclass description. If a person can't come up with an RP justification for why they suddenly have Wild Magic, then they really can't RP.