Talk:Ability Score Rolling

I recently spotted an edit to add two more possible values to the table. My original intention when creating it was to make it clear that whenever one sees the secondary values read X/Y, they can also always be Y/X.

If that was not very clear, can you help me figure out what the best way to make it known might be, without filling the table with duplicate permutation entries? Recommendations are welcome, as the only thing that comes to my mind is separating those values with a slash ( / ), instead of having them on separate columns.

Thanks. - Derangement (Talk | contribs) 23:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Its best to keep both tables.


 * Also, with regards to the two new permutations entries which I have added, they are not duplicates.
 * The reason is that, its very easy and clear to understand that the position of the columns of the First Table (under "Possible Values"), corresponds directly to the position of the columns of the Second Table (under "Order of the Ability Scores").


 * I also suggest, that we clearly state the total number of possible permutations for the Ability Scores, so that the reader will not be left guessing as to how many there are.


 * With tables, the reader can just easily copy all the information into their spreadsheet.
 * No need for guesswork, and all information at their fingertips.


 * NOTE: are there any more permutations for the Ability Scores? If so, lets list them all.
 * ( I may have missed some).
 * --Psykronos (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarity, the secondary ability scores are always interchangeable.
 * So, the full table, if we were to show all combinations, would look like this:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * }
 * My intent was to diminish visual clutter, and make it faster to read, by grouping up all X/Y and Y/X combinations of secondary abilities together in one.
 * A mockup of an alternative look would be this:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! style="color:#DDA0DD" | Primary ! style="color:#ADADFF" | Secondary ! A ! B ! C
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 18
 * style="text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 13 / 13
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 8
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 18
 * style="text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 13 / 13
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 8
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 18
 * style="text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 13 / 13
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 8
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 17
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 14 / 13
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 17
 * style="text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 13 / 13
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px; color:#DDA0DD" | 17
 * style="text-align: center; width:80px; color:#ADADFF" | 13 / 13
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center" colspan=5 | ...and so on.
 * }
 * Which of the two do you find works best?
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 10
 * style="text-align: center; width:40px" | 11
 * style="background:#170600; text-align: center" colspan=5 | ...and so on.
 * }
 * Which of the two do you find works best?
 * Which of the two do you find works best?


 * Hi,
 * Nice job on the first table there.
 * I now know there are more permutations than ever before.
 * Thank you very much!


 * The first table, showing all combinations, works best for me.
 * All the permutations are shown in full.
 * It is easy to count how many total permutations there are (18 permutations).
 * It takes one less step to interpret the table, because you do not need to follow
 * the rule of "the secondary ability scores are always interchangeable".


 * It may look cluttered, but its pretty easy to see a pattern in the table:
 * For example:
 * Primary Abilities with the value of :
 * 18 have 3 permutations.
 * 17 have 4 permutations.
 * 16 have 5 permutations.
 * 15 have 6 permutations.


 * You can easily count it, because it is shown explicitly.


 * In contrast, when using the alternative table (grouping up all X/Y and Y/X secondary abilities together),
 * It is harder to see the above pattern, and harder to know how many total permutations there are.
 * When reading such a table, it is always implied that you must know the rule:
 * "the secondary ability scores are always interchangeable".


 * In closing, I prefer to read a straightforward table without the need to keep rules in mind.


 * Below is the improved table, with the rows rearranged from highest number to lowest number (starting from left column).
 * Colour was added to make it easy to see the pattern.


 * Cheers!


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * +Possible Permutations (18 total)


 * }


 * --Psykronos (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh! So that's what I was missing!
 * Reordering the table as you did made it a whole lot more user-friendly. Even if the underlying pattern in why the possible stat arrangements are as they are is not immediately evident, it's also not necessary to actually use the table from the point of view of someone planning a new character.
 * I'll go ahead and move that over to the article itself, but probably keeping a less flashy dark-brown colour to separate categories inside the table as before. If someone with a better sense of aesthetics than I finds a colour combination that works better with the current wiki theme, go ahead and change that. :)
 * - Derangement (Talk | contribs) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am glad you've understood.
 * Yes please do so.
 * I admit, my sense of colour is not that great also.
 * ^_^
 * --Psykronos (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Elf Gwf bug
Elf GWF is bugged and puts the primary roll for ONE (and only one) of the possible combinations with INT as the highest value, giving a 19 (from memory) int and an 11 (from memory) str. Which may provide some sort of nutty high-recovery build.

"16/15/15/13/11/9" #142157 revert comment
I reverted #142157. Possible Values in table presents rolls without racial traits.

It looks like 16/15/15/13/11/9 was achieved with Sun Elf's Racial Trait: +2 INT & +2 CHA

If you achieved 16/15/15/13/11/9 without Racial Traits, make the change again, providing any comment about how it is possible.

General rule is that rhere can be only 1 score less than 10 and scores are clamped at [8;18]. The following scores have following costs:

and the summary cost cannot be greater than 32.

If you found an exception from this rule, please, provide some information.

For now; the editions is reverted. Benio101 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)