PDA

View Full Version : [D&D Any Edition] Pointbuy vs. Rolling



Sir Homeslice
2009-12-28, 06:31 AM
Alright, this topic's pretty self-explainatory, what do you prefer between pointbuy and rolling?

I like pointbuy. Never liked rolling at all, too many bad experiences turned me off of it.

Killer Angel
2009-12-28, 06:39 AM
I once was a great supporter of rolling dices, because, you know, we're not all equals.
Now, I'm all for pointbuy: a lucky serie gives too many advantages, while the group should be on par.
I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 06:44 AM
We've used point buy as a houserule even way back in 2E. I don't mind some randomness in games, but penalizing certain characters forever because they had some unlucky rolls at character generation seems unnecessary. And yes, I've seen people roll four scores of 17+ in a row using 3d6 only. Statistically unlikely but it happens.

Comet
2009-12-28, 06:49 AM
In D&D? Point buy. Because I think D&D is about being an awesome hero on grand adventures and that just doesn't work if you happen to roll a line of thirteens.

In some other games, rolling is great and makes the character creation interesting. You have to improvise your character based on the stats you get from the dice. It can be much fun.

Samurai Jill
2009-12-28, 06:49 AM
The problem with rolling for stats is that it kinda neglects the fact that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to become adventurers in the first place. On balance, it's generally more trouble than it's worth.

Matthew
2009-12-28, 06:53 AM
Rolling; I enjoy the randomness, and get quickly tired of every fighter starting with an 18 strength. I am more inclined to play a paladin or ranger if I roll high, then a fighter, assuming I want to play a fighting class.

Simba
2009-12-28, 06:54 AM
In my groups I like to let people roll the dice once, then take point buy if they are unhappy with the results.

I personally prefer point buy, but sometimes it itches to just try your luck.

Rolling also leads to threads where lots of people roll up a character, then leave because the scores are too low for their tastes. They simply roll in each thread that announces a new game, but only really apply when they roll well. Fun to watch!

ken-do-nim
2009-12-28, 06:58 AM
I don't think this should be an any edition thread. Older editions play different, you generally play multiple characters whereas in 3.5 and 4.0 you play one character all the way through. Rolling makes sense for older, point buy for newer.

Grumman
2009-12-28, 06:58 AM
I prefer point buy, at least as an option if you didn't roll well. Otherwise rolling poorly means either playing as a character that lets the team down or missing out on the campaign altogether.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 07:04 AM
Older editions play different, you generally play multiple characters whereas in 3.5 and 4.0 you play one character all the way through.
This strikes me as a myth propagated by detractors of 1E/2E. Sure, some people played that way, but that doesn't mean that most people did, or that the game was intended like that.

Lioness
2009-12-28, 07:08 AM
Rolling to get the number of points.

Sort of

Our DM lets us roll stats, and then if we get an exceptionally bad one, we can take points off a high one to make it better. We even out odd numbers, and such.

jmbrown
2009-12-28, 07:28 AM
3E ruined the aspect of rolling for ability scores by introducing a linear increase in attributes. In early editions you weren't penalized as heavily for having low scores. The only difference between a fighter with 10 strength and 14 strength was a few extra pounds of weight. Since there were fewer bonuses in general (AC and to-hit had a hard cap) actual tactics in combat like flanking and fighting from high ground counted more towards successful combat than attributes.

With that said I prefer rolling in older editions and point buy in newer editions. Two different game styles require different approaches.

Guinea Anubis
2009-12-28, 07:39 AM
I am a fan of rolling dice.

Tetsubo 57
2009-12-28, 07:39 AM
Point buy all the way. In 3.5 I consider a 28 pb the bare minimum and prefer a 32 pb. Screw random characteristics. People with low scores are called Commoners.

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 07:46 AM
The problem with rolling for stats is that it kinda neglects the fact that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to become adventurers in the first place. On balance, it's generally more trouble than it's worth.

Very much this. Even worse was rolling in order.

"So you want to be a Wizard? Ok, roll for INT. Ooh, 13 - guess you'll be at the back of the class in Hogwarts this session. HUFFLEPUFF!"



I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

Check the second post. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

LibraryOgre
2009-12-28, 10:51 AM
This strikes me as a myth propagated by detractors of 1E/2E. Sure, some people played that way, but that doesn't mean that most people did, or that the game was intended like that.

Ken's one of the old edition stalwarts, though. Now, mind you, I've played more characters in my year and a half of 4e than I ever did in a single 2e campaign, but that's a pure 2e game.

FWIW, I prefer rolls, though I understand (and tend to use when my players ask) PB.

Killer Angel
2009-12-28, 11:16 AM
Check the second post. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

Thanks... I love how you can always count on the other playgrounders. :smallbiggrin:

This gives even a wider range than what I was thinking. My idea was in the order of 24 (or 28) for tiers 1-2, 28 (or 32) for tiers 3-4, 32 (or 36) for tiers 5-6.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 11:22 AM
Pointbuy also has the advantage of being able to "roll" at home.

Surrealistik
2009-12-28, 11:23 AM
Point buy; because the Mary and Anti-Sues that invariably result from random rolls just don't mix, not to mention no one likes to be relegated to cheerleader for those that lucked out during character creation.

Meek
2009-12-28, 11:33 AM
Point Buy, because I can have fair stats without visiting the DM's home and rolling my character in his face. And I can tailor my stats to what I actually want to play, rather than what the RNG gave me.

Aron Times
2009-12-28, 12:01 PM
In a 4e game I recently joined, I rolled the equivalent of 54 point buy (normal 4e is 22 point buy). :smalleek:

And the DM says it's okay...

Weezer
2009-12-28, 12:05 PM
I prefer rolling, it creates an element of randomness that I enjoy. It doesnt hurt that I'm unglodly lucky when it comes to dice so I usually end up with a pretty good statline.

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-28, 12:06 PM
I once was a great supporter of rolling dices, because, you know, we're not all equals.
Now, I'm all for pointbuy: a lucky serie gives too many advantages, while the group should be on par.
I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

Did that myself once. Tier 1's got 25, Tier 2's got 28, Tier 3's+4's got 32, and everyone under Tier 4 got 43.


I dislike PB because it is a slight headache to work with unless you have a hardcopy DMG or memorized the costs for points (which I don't do because I don't make characters enough to warrant it). I like rolling, but recognize it's weaknesses. My RL players refuse to use PB for various reasons.

Frozen_Feet
2009-12-28, 12:23 PM
I like rolling, I even liked rolling in order back when we played 1st edition D&D. However, me and my group had different stance to roleplaying back then. We didn't think out concepts and then try to reflect them within the game - we rolled statistics and came up with a concept based on that. The challenge it provided was part of the fun. After I began thinking my characters trough first, I pretty much abandoned strict rule systems like D&D and switched to more narrative or freeform ones.

AshDesert
2009-12-28, 12:39 PM
I vastly prefer point buy to rolling, mostly because you can fully build your characters at home, and all the characters will be on a similar footing.

However, for one-offs, rolling in order can be very fun (Barbarian with a 15 Intelligence is fun to RP).

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 12:41 PM
What I get tired of under point-buy is that everything is so optimized. Rolling gave you the unexpected, which added a touch of realism. A particular wizard might happen to be rather strong. Not because his build calls for him to get Power Attack at some point, but just because he's a strong and smart guy that decided to become a wizard. A fighter might be more charismatic than average, or a cleric might be quicker than you'd expect. Not because it's optimal for him, but because that's just what his abilities happen to be. Makes the PCs feel a little more real to me.

I'm not sure if there's a better system... maybe roll 4d4 in order for "starting stat", and then apply 25 PB on top of that? With maybe 0.5 points required to raise an attribute that is below 7? 4d4 should give a small enough variation that you can make it up with PB and not have huge power gaps among the PCs.

Crow
2009-12-28, 12:43 PM
I offer my players a variety of rolling options to choose from, and if they don't like the results, 25-point buy.

I think the obsession that many people have with high stats is what makes a lot of people prefer point buy. Over the course of a character's career, low stats really doesn't have that huge of an impact on the game. Having a single 14 can be enough if you're not playing a MAD class. We've played games where some people got lucky on their rolls, and others did not. It's really not as big a deal as people say it is. Generally, unless you have two people in a group trying to fill the same role, the idea that one person's high stats ruin the game for others is a myth. It's a team game, not a contest.

Hell, some people say that 25 point buy isn't even enough. Trust me, you can make perfectly playable characters with 25 point buy. Leave your number-envy at the door, it's just a game for heaven's sake.

deuxhero
2009-12-28, 12:46 PM
I like 32 point buy. Consistent and feels more like the characters are exceptional characters compared to lower point buys.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 12:51 PM
Rolling. Pointbuy causes too many even numbers 95% of the time and 18's for SAD classes.

Most complaints I hear about rolling low comes from rolling a 13-15 for your high stat, which is actually only a hair below average. Your chance of actually rolling low without being granted a reroll is extremely low. Commoners are all 10's, or at best 13 high with other low stats to compensate. If you want a higher power game, bump up player level or lower CR (possibly w/o lowering xp), rather than adding imbalance. Or making you boost monster stats to match, making it exactly the same as if no one was boosted. If you "need" an 18, why don't you "need" a 20? The need for even higher stats than normal rules to be "better" or "enough" is 110% arbitrary.

Kieran Cage
2009-12-28, 12:56 PM
The group I have been playing with most recently has an interesting compromise for rolling vs. point buy:

All players roll up starting stats the traditional way (4d6, drop the low die, reroll 1's).

Then the players decide which set of numbers that all characters will use, with ties broken by (what else?) a die roll.

This is often necessary when players cannot agree on the set with nothing above 15, but also nothing below a 12, or the set that has an 8, but also two 18's and a 17.

When the particular set is decided, that is the set that all characters use. Scores are then applied to stats at the player's discretion (ie: the fighter would most likely put the high number in STR/CON, the sorcerer in CHA, etc.) Finally, racial bonuses/penalties are applied.

This allows us to keep the aspect of random rolls, but doesn't create an imbalance of ability scores among players. Plus, the players who are traditionally unlucky die rollers get to use numbers rolled up by a more dice-friendly player.

It's worked quite well for us.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 01:15 PM
Rolling. Pointbuy causes too many even numbers 95% of the time and 18's for SAD classes.

Most complaints I hear about rolling low comes from rolling a 13-15 for your high stat, which is actually only a hair below average. Your chance of actually rolling low without being granted a reroll is extremely low. Commoners are all 10's, or at best 13 high with other low stats to compensate. If you want a higher power game, bump up player level or lower CR (possibly w/o lowering xp), rather than adding imbalance. Or making you boost monster stats to match, making it exactly the same as if no one was boosted. If you "need" an 18, why don't you "need" a 20? The need for even higher stats than normal rules to be "better" or "enough" is 110% arbitrary.

If your highest roll is "below average", then that means all your rolls are below average. The probability of rolling below average on six such rolls is less than 1.6%.

So yes, I'd be rather annoyed if the dice gods gave me stats that bad.

randomhero00
2009-12-28, 01:18 PM
I prefer point buy systems because they're fairest, but I like rolling better because I have loki's luck :) My last stat rolls were like 3 17s, 2 14s and a 10, lol. (one of my best though).

Yukitsu
2009-12-28, 01:25 PM
I prefer point buy, but also appreciate the option of rolls for people who don't. PB is more reliable, and I can more accurately make an effective build out of it.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-28, 01:27 PM
I used to like PB because it let me do whatever I felt like doing instead of being shoehorned into something due to rolls.

However, I've become a proponent of 6 sets of 2d6+6 lately because it gives an average of 13 with some high and some low. Either way, the odds of getting all 8s or even all 13s is very low.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 01:27 PM
I once was a great supporter of rolling dices, because, you know, we're not all equals.
Now, I'm all for pointbuy: a lucky serie gives too many advantages, while the group should be on par.

That is how I started, and what I changed to.


I like 32 point buy. Consistent and feels more like the characters are exceptional characters compared to lower point buys.

And this is where I am now.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 01:47 PM
If your highest roll is "below average", then that means all your rolls are below average. The probability of rolling below average on six such rolls is less than 1.6%.

So yes, I'd be rather annoyed if the dice gods gave me stats that bad.

That's a highest roll below the average highest roll. A 14 is not below average on 4d6 drop 1 for an individual roll. Why do I actually have to explain this?

jmbrown
2009-12-28, 01:53 PM
The DMG suggests "elite" stats are 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 which is 25 points and perfectly reasonable. Most monsters are built on the common array.

Based on the comments in this topic, people who favor the point buy refuse to do anything less than 28. I guess a "good" character is impossible if you have a penalty or one of your ability scores isn't 16?

Eldariel
2009-12-28, 02:02 PM
High enough Pb to make optimizing every point invested necessary. Makes for the most interesting characters IMHO.

@jmbrown: People use 28pb since with the reroll rules in PHB, the 4d6b3 averages ~27pb. 25pb is weaker than the standard option, even though it's written otherwise in the DMG.

That said, I'm of the school that the player really should be pretty much able to decide his character's stats to match his image of said character so I'm using generous (40+) pbs quite often.

I don't worry about abuse since there's only so much the tertiary stats add to strong classes, and helping weak classes never hurt anyone.

jmbrown
2009-12-28, 02:10 PM
High enough Pb to make optimizing every point invested necessary. Makes for the most interesting characters IMHO.

@jmbrown: People use 28pb since with the reroll rules in PHB, the 4d6b3 averages ~27pb. 25pb is weaker than the standard option, even though it's written otherwise in the DMG.

That said, I'm of the school that the player really should be pretty much able to decide his character's stats to match his image of said character so I'm using generous (40+) pbs quite often.

I don't worry about abuse since there's only so much the tertiary stats add to strong classes, and helping weak classes never hurt anyone.

Eh, 3.5 made people hate odd numbers since nearly everything that affects ability scores makes it so you get at least a +1 out of it. I lean towards rolling or odd numbers for the very fact that I want to see some variance instead of 5 wizard applicants with 16 or 18 intelligence each.

Point buy makes the game feel so cookie cutter like there's an adventurer factory that just pumps out the same template with a different name and background.

Edit: I do like the idea of variant point buy based on class tier but you always have the player who thinks everything must be fair and equal and would complain even though their class has abilities that can circumvent nearly any physical limitation.

Eldariel
2009-12-28, 02:13 PM
Eh, 3.5 made people hate odd numbers since nearly everything that affects ability scores makes it so you get at least a +1 out of it. I lean towards rolling or odd numbers for the very fact that I want to see some variance instead of 5 wizard applicants with 16 or 18 intelligence each.

Point buy makes the game feel so cookie cutter like there's an adventurer factory that just pumps out the same template with a different name and background.

*shrug* I think there's a huge amount of difference between Cha-focused Wizard, Wis-focused Wizard, Dex-focused Wizard and Str-focused Wizard even if all of them have high Int and high Con.

Wis-focus enables stuff like Arcane Disciple and splashing some divine power, along with sensory abilities and such. Cha-focus makes for better use of enchantments and calling spells. Str-focus obviously enables superior gishing and Dex-focus could lead to a Rogueish Wizard or a Ray Sniper of some sort.


Odd ability scores...well, I find if you give people access to +1 - +3 - +5 stat buff items, they'll be more willing to get them. Or just generate extra feats to gain at various odd ability scores.

Frankly, I've never had problems doing this. My players realize they have so much pb to customize their character within the class and the race. If someone plays a high maintenance character (such as Monk or Ranger or Paladin or such), of course they'll use the high pb to get something in all their relevant stats, but that's implied.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 02:28 PM
@jmbrown: People use 28pb since with the reroll rules in PHB, the 4d6b3 averages ~27pb. 25pb is weaker than the standard option, even though it's written otherwise in the DMG.
On this and odd ability scores. 4d6b3 is only 27-28 pb if you pay for the odd numbers. Otherwise it's 25 pb or less. The elite array - 15,14,13,12,10 - is slightly below average rolls and is 8+6+5+4+2=25 pb but 14,14,12,12 10 is 22 pb. Odd numbers are sometimes useful, but usually not. Rolls also don't let you nerf your dump stats further to boost your high stat. As I said this also favors classes with more dump stats.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 02:31 PM
@jmbrown: People use 28pb since with the reroll rules in PHB, the 4d6b3 averages ~27pb. 25pb is weaker than the standard option, even though it's written otherwise in the DMG.
With 4d6b3, you are (a) taking a chance that you'll do "average" or better [though even "below average" for 4d6b3 is likely to be "above average" on the 3-18 scale], and (b) even if your overall PB-equivalent is 27, it might not suit your needs as well as 25 PB. Could be all 15 or lower, for example. Any given score in 4d6b3 is 87% likely to be 15 or less, which means that with 6 stats you are 43% likely to NOT get a 16 or better. you are 70% likely to not get a 17, and 91% likely to not get an 18. With 25-pb, you can get a high stat if you want one.

Certainty is an advantage. Customization is an advantage. 28-pb is stronger than 4d6b3.

valadil
2009-12-28, 02:35 PM
I miss rolling, but I don't think I could ever go back to it. At least not for D&D. The last time I saw random rolling, I saw players get themselve killed just so they could start over with better stats.

I'd probably have to be playing in a new system where nobody knew the rules to appreciate a randomly powerful character again. It's easier to let things like that go when you know you're interpretting rules wrong to begin with.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 02:37 PM
Based on the comments in this topic, people who favor the point buy refuse to do anything less than 28. I guess a "good" character is impossible if you have a penalty or one of your ability scores isn't 16?

CHARACTER ABILITIES

. . . The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics. . . .

- Player's Handbook (AD&D 1st edition)

GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES

As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used.

- Dungeon Masters Guide (AD&D 1st edition)

I "guess" so.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 02:39 PM
I miss rolling, but I don't think I could ever go back to it. At least not for D&D. The last time I saw random rolling, I saw players get themselve killed just so they could start over with better stats.
New characters start a level below the party. Rezz'd characters, same problem. When you say this is too horrible of a penalty then you run into problems like this one and many others. Proper solution is to remember that these people gain xp faster and so catch up eventually (well, almost) while sucking only temporary.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 02:44 PM
CHARACTER ABILITIES

. . . The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics. . . .

In 1E, you needed a 15 to get any sort of mechanical advantage for most stats; that is, you needed a 15 to actually perform most tasks in an above-average way (16 for Str, IIRC). In Basic, you got that at 13. In 3E, you get that at 12.

Moldvay Basic only declares characters hopeless if they are below average in every ability, or if they have more than one very low score (3-6). 3E's ability score bonuses are much more like those of Basic than those of 1E.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 02:54 PM
Saying you need so much just to survive seems more like a knock at the players' optimization-fu or DMs encounter choices than anything. As said in another thread, it should take a fairly high CR to actually risk a TPK even on standard stats merely being played reasonably well. CR = party level is just a road bump under these conditions.

Gamerlord
2009-12-28, 02:57 PM
In 3.5, rolling.
In 4e, Point-buy.

Zaydos
2009-12-28, 03:04 PM
I have to agree it changes with edition. With D&D B/E/C/M/I I died a lot (sometimes due to the other PCs) and rolling made each character different. With 1 & 2e I'd definitely roll (unless you have 18/XX Str it doesn't matter much). With 3e I generally like rolling, but am enough of an optimizer to like having an 18 Int. With 4e I go point buy.

When I DM I generally use rolls and if someone's really a lot better than everybody else give everyone else a (or a series of) small boost to make them closer to equal (last time this was a +2 on Charisma on a non-charisma based character, they eventually took about half ranks in diplomacy). Sometimes I use reroll 1s but generally find it's not neccessary and gets too powerful characters (last time I made a reroll 1s character he had 4 18s, a 17 and a 16, or 3 18s, 2 17s, and a 16 and was a dragon themed sorcerer with fire blast spells and 16 Str). The odd thing is I find such high stats a waste on my favorite characters (since B/E/C/M/I they've been wizards, in GURPS they're wizards, in every system they're people with magic even ones where it's not strong) because they're so SAD, now what I should have made with those is a Paladin (Str 18, Dex 17, Con 18, Int 16, Wis 18, Cha 18) that would have been a fun paladin (it was a fun sorcerer for the one-shot anyway).

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 03:12 PM
In 1E, you needed a 15 to get any sort of mechanical advantage for most stats; that is, you needed a 15 to actually perform most tasks in an above-average way (16 for Str, IIRC). In Basic, you got that at 13. In 3E, you get that at 12.

In 3E, the elite array gives two stats with a +2, two stats with a +1, one stat with a +0, and one stat with a -1.
If the goal is for a PC to be above average and have superior potential, by definition he is going to have to exceed that.
That suggests any of a variety of factors, including two stats with a +3, four stats with a +2, or no stats with a penalty.


Moldvay Basic only declares characters hopeless if they are below average in every ability, or if they have more than one very low score (3-6). 3E's ability score bonuses are much more like those of Basic than those of 1E.

That is for "hopeless".
It does not address whether the character crosses the line from "viable" to "desirable", and particularly does not address both the ability to survive to avoid "[discouraging] new players" and being something a player "really [can] or [will] identify with."

If your goal is avoiding being "hopeless", then 25 points, the elite array, or even the default array, are sufficient.
If you want "desirable" and "identifiable", then 28 or 32 point buys are more likely to be required.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 03:28 PM
That is for "hopeless".

I included that line because it's the section heading under which you find it. What Mr. Moldvay meant, as is evident from the rest of his text, is the conditions under which it's reasonable to allow the player to re-reroll. Moldvay did not include text similar to Gygax's 1E text of telling the DM what players want. Mentzer kept the same guidelines, suggesting re-roll if the highest ability score is below 9 or if 2 scores are below 6. The word "hopless" is not used in Mentzer, if that's what was bothering you.

I'm not going to recap 2E's position in detail, because it's quite extensive in both the PHB and DMG, but it's pretty strongly anti-powergaming; it really downplays the importance of high attributes and discourages rerolling.

With bonuses available at lower stats, you don't need stats to be as far up the bell curve for the PCs to feel above average. Thus, the 1E advice on "2 scores of 15 or more" has no relevance for 3E.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 03:32 PM
That's a highest roll below the average highest roll. A 14 is not below average on 4d6 drop 1 for an individual roll. Why do I actually have to explain this?

I misinterpreted what you meant by "below average", for which I apologize :smallsmile:

taltamir
2009-12-28, 03:39 PM
if you are rolling for relative strength with your peers, why not just go all the way and roll a D20, whatever you roll is your character's level... That way you can have a level 1 character playing with a level 20.

Rolling should not be used for HP or for stats, they just shouldn't...
Are we all the same? no.
But we should be somewhat balanced if we are gonna play together. That is why we have things like LA.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 03:42 PM
if you are rolling for relative strength with your peers, why not just go all the way and roll a D20, whatever you roll is your character's level... That way you can have a level 1 character playing with a level 20.

Rolling should not be used for HP or for stats, they just shouldn't...
Are we all the same? no.
But we should be somewhat balanced if we are gonna play together. That is why we have things like LA.

There's a big difference between using 4d6 drop 1 for each stat vs. using 1d20 for starting level.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 03:46 PM
There's a big difference between using 4d6 drop 1 for each stat vs. using 1d20 for starting level.

the only difference is that one gives you more of a bell curve.
Last game I ended up playing a wizard whose lowest score was a 14... one of my buddy played someone whose highest score was a 14 followed by an 11 and the rest under 10. (well, the DM replaced his 14 with a single 18 because he felt sorry for him... still, his attributes sucked).

Fair? hardly.

Oh, and due to luck on rolling, up until level 6 my wizard had about the same HP as the tank due to rolling luck.

So you if you want to introduce the same bell curve... roll 4d6 keep best 3, thats your character's level. There, no there is no difference.

Ozreth
2009-12-28, 03:48 PM
We roll. Making new characters has always been "rolling a new character" for me, it just wouldn't seem right otherwise. And even though we are supposed to be mighty heroes on these adventures, the best stories feature characters with flaws.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 03:48 PM
the only difference is that one gives you more of a bell curve.
Last game I ended up playing a wizard whose lowest score was a 14... one of my buddy played someone whose highest score was a 14 and lowest was a 6. (well, the DM replaced his 14 with a single 18... still, his attributes sucked).

Fair? hardly.

Oh, and due to luck on rolling, up until level 6 my wizard had about the same HP as the tank due to rolling luck.

So you if you want to introduce the same bell curve... roll 4d6 keep best 3, thats your character's level. There, no there is no difference.

I still fail to see how that is even remotely comparable to one character being level 15 and the other level 3.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 03:50 PM
We roll. Making new characters has always been "rolling a new character" for me, it just wouldn't seem right otherwise. And even though we are supposed to be mighty heroes on these adventures, the best stories feature characters with flaws.

flaws? yes... unequal power between players in a game? no.
Besides... rolling means a lot of characters have no flaws (all above average scores). While if you did point buy you could actually dump a stat and get an actual "flaw" (aka, dex 8, you have a flaw, you are clumsy! str8, you have a flaw, you are a weakling)

Crow
2009-12-28, 04:18 PM
I want to ask you people, how much real difference a 15 has made as opposed to an 18 once you stop looking at the sheet and play the characters? For a melee character, it's the difference of a flank. For a wizard, it's 2 starting spells (and doesn't limit spells he laearns later). It's a 10% difference on the roll of a d20. Seriously folks, over the course of a campaign, the difference isn't as noticable as everyone says. This inequality between players garbage is a bunch of bunk. Depending upon the play style of the players, even "equal" players can be grossly unevenly powered in relation to one another. The actual numbers are pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, PC's are exceptional. That is why they have a +2 mod, while Joe in the tavern has a +0. It is the reason they have a level in wizard, while Joe has a level in commoner, or a level in Paladin while Susy has a level in warrior.

There is really a lot of number-insecurity on these boards, man. 25 point buy makes perfectly playable characters (playable in the sense that the class is playable to begin with of course).

taltamir
2009-12-28, 04:27 PM
a caster also gains benefit to DC saves against its spells... which matters.

If you are an int caster, you also get more skill points... skills are nice.

usually everyone has "sufficient" score in their main stat... whether it is 15 or 18...
but if your other stats are crap that means your secondary stats like con (HP/level) and dex (AC) have to drop... also STR (carry capacity) for casters (aka, make it 8 instead of 10 hurts some). etc

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 04:32 PM
There is really a lot of number-insecurity on these boards, man. 25 point buy makes perfectly playable characters (playable in the sense that the class is playable to begin with of course).
I completely agree.

(the 2E handbook even had a section on that; this was cut from the 3E handbook)

Friend Computer
2009-12-28, 04:34 PM
flaws? yes... unequal power between players in a game? no.
This is a view that bothers me. People talk about wanting viable characters and not having massive differences in power and all that, but...

Wizards exist.
Variations in optimization-fu exist.

So, in order for it to be 'fair,' you have to have a group of yourself playing the same class.

That, and... 10's and 11's are average. If you have a character with six 12's, you have someone who may not be the best at anything, but is a damn sight better than most at everything.

This leads me to the following conclusion:
All PCs should be made with the non-standard array. A fighter in such a case is likely to have a +2 attack bonus and 11 HP at level 1. Compare this to a+1 AB and 4hp for a lv 1 warrior, or +0AB and 2hp for a commoner.

No, such characters are not heroic in any way, shape or form! /sarcasm.

Crow
2009-12-28, 04:35 PM
(the 2E handbook even had a section on that; this was cut from the 3E handbook)

I actually remember that! I didn't play a lot of 2e, but I am sad to say that I was one of the "gotta have high stats!" crowd back then. I'd love to find that section and read it again, but sadly don't have the books.

Milskidasith
2009-12-28, 04:48 PM
I like high PB? Why?

Because it doesn't make wizards any more powerful, and helps out MAD classes a ton. 40 PB... what can the wizard do? 18 int, obviously, but I'd buy that in anything above sixteen point buy (where I'd go 16 int 12 con 10 dex and probably a +con race, like dwarf.), and high con, but the rest of the stats are fluff, while a monk and paladin can actually be, while not decent, at least all of their abilities could be kept strong enough they aren't total wastes of class features (well, you know what I mean; they're still terrible, but at least they are terrible while having wizard like DCs on their stunning fists and being able to actually hit things... maybe.)

Tequila Sunrise
2009-12-28, 04:49 PM
I prefer point buy. It's not like I can't have fun by rolling for stats, but I don't think that permanent traits should be decided by randomness. I also don't see how rolling can be justified from a realism PoV. I mean, unless you're going to roll for number of feats, skills, hp and everything else the game isn't realistic in that way at all.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 04:52 PM
I included that line because it's the section heading under which you find it. What Mr. Moldvay meant, as is evident from the rest of his text, is the conditions under which it's reasonable to allow the player to re-reroll. Moldvay did not include text similar to Gygax's 1E text of telling the DM what players want. Mentzer kept the same guidelines, suggesting re-roll if the highest ability score is below 9 or if 2 scores are below 6. The word "hopless" is not used in Mentzer, if that's what was bothering you.

Well actually, it is:

"Hopeless Characters"

Sometimes, a player may "roll up" a character who is below average in every ability, or who has more than one very low (3-6) ability score (such as a fighter with very low Dexterity and Constitution). The DM may declare the character to be not suited for dangerous adventure, and the player may be allowed to roll up a new character in place of the "hopeless" one.

As for Gygax "telling" the DM what players want, whose word should we be taking as to what they want?
Of course that casually overlooks the simple fact that people being disappointed with character survival and not wanting to bother with the game after a first attempt is something that affects the company and not just the individual DM. This was a factor for the RPGA with the Living Greyhawk, and has affected Paizo's attempt at organized play as well. Perhaps it is bit disingenuous to slip an issue of corporate profitability into the game rules, but when you consider that turning off new players over a character generation issue also affects players who want the player base to expand, it becomes relevant at all levels.


I'm not going to recap 2E's position in detail, because it's quite extensive in both the PHB and DMG, but it's pretty strongly anti-powergaming; it really downplays the importance of high attributes and discourages rerolling.

Yes, I reviewed it.
It tries to pass judgements of character power off as nothing but perception, suggesting that there was no real difference in characteristics. This is in stark contrast to 1st ed and 3E.


With bonuses available at lower stats, you don't need stats to be as far up the bell curve for the PCs to feel above average. Thus, the 1E advice on "2 scores of 15 or more" has no relevance for 3E.

That ignores the overall effect of switching from a bell curve to a linear progression combined with increasing the base power level.
When the standard array is +0 combined modifiers, the elite array is +5 combined modifiers, and general monster power level applies afterwards, combined modifiers of +8 or more is not outrageous. All that is changed is the specific goal number of 15. The translation to a 16 or better is thus just simple math.

Jayabalard
2009-12-28, 05:03 PM
The problem with rolling for stats is that it kinda neglects the fact that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to become adventurers in the first place.Not really;

At best, you could argue that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to survive the adventuring lifestyle, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Even at the extreme end, there's plenty of room in the world to have Nigel the destroyed right next to Conina the hairdresser on a grand adventure together.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 05:09 PM
Well actually, it is:

No, that's Moldvay. That's why I used the word in the first place. Then I noted that Mentzer (p. P48 and D15) doesn't use the word "hopeless" though he uses the same criteria for allowing rolling up a new PC. So if the word "hopeless" bothers you, then Mentzer (the BECMI author) just viewed those scores as "suitable for re-rolling" without calling them hopeless.



That ignores the overall effect of switching from a bell curve to a linear progression combined with increasing the base power level.
When the standard array is +0 combined modifiers, the elite array is +5 combined modifiers, and general monster power level applies afterwards, combined modifiers of +8 or more is not outrageous. All that is changed is the specific goal number of 15. The translation to a 16 or better is thus just simple math.
I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.
In 3E, a 16 Str means that you have +3 to hit and damage. Even as a raw recruit, your attack rolls are as good as those of a typical human guard of a couple levels higher (War3). Your immense Strength means you do 67% more damage with a longsword than an ordinary human does. A 16 Dex means that in a simple chain shirt you are as hard to injure as an ordinary warrior in half-plate.

In 1E, a 16 Str means you get +1 damage and no bonus to hit.

A 16 does much, much more in placing you head and shoulders above "normal" people in 3E than it did in 1E.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:09 PM
This is a view that bothers me. People talk about wanting viable characters and not having massive differences in power and all that, but...

...*strawman argument*...

How about no.
We don't need to all be playing commoners to have a balanced game.
Yes, a wizard as written should not be playing with a fighter as written. The fighter should get some boosts.
Your assertion is similar to that of smokers who say "there is pollution in the air anyways, so why should I quit smoking?"
Just because there IS imbalance in the system doesn't mean we should intentionally introduce easily removed imbalances and refuse to remove them at any cost.

Balancing wizards and fighters is hard. Balancing point buy is easy. Since striving for balance is a good thing, you should use point buy... likewise, you should use LA for monster races to further balance the game, and give some extra stuff to the poor fighter to balance him with the wizard.

But to argue that the game is broken anyways so we should either intentionally introduce unbalancing like roll for stats is just a strawman argument and a logical fallacy.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-28, 05:12 PM
This strikes me as a myth propagated by detractors of 1E/2E. Sure, some people played that way, but that doesn't mean that most people did, or that the game was intended like that.

Detractors? I'm not talking about character deaths, I'm talking about swapping characters in and out while one is training or healing up, and the use of henchmen/retainers who then become pcs in their own right after a while.

Anyways, keep in mind in TSR versions of D&D you also roll your hit points randomly - even at 1st level. Which would you rather play, the fighter with 18 strength and 1 hit point or the fighter with 11 strength and 10 hit points?

Actually, this is a good question for 3.5 players as well. How many of you roll hit points each level? If so, why not ability scores?

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:21 PM
i always push my DM to give me point buy and average HP (round down, full on first level).

Jayabalard
2009-12-28, 05:23 PM
How about no.
We don't need to all be playing commoners to have a balanced game.
That's not a strawman argument; he's not misrepresenting anyone's argument. He's pointing out that there will always be some differences in power while presenting a counterargument to someone who said there shouldn't be differences in power between players ("unequal power between players in a game? no.")


Yes, a wizard as written should not be playing with a fighter as written. The fighter should get some boosts.I don't see why not. I've never had a problem with it.

That kind of indicates that this is a personal tastes sort of thing; if you had said "I wouldn't want to play a fighter as written in a game with a wizard as written" well, you probably wouldn't see anyone arguing with you.


Your assertion is similar to that of smokers who say "there is pollution in the air anyways, so why should I quit smoking?"That's really a bad analogy. It doesn't mirror his statement in any way, and there really isn't much of an assertion at all in that post. Maybe you're responding to something else?


Just because there IS imbalance in the system doesn't mean we should intentionally introduce easily removed imbalances and refuse to remove them at any cost.likewise, just because there are is imbalance in the system doesn't mean that there's any need to remove those imbalances.


Since striving for balance is a good thingI would argue that this happens to be your opinion, and is not something that should be taken as a given for all players. Since part of your premise is flawed, you can't really use that to reach the conclusions you're drawing from it.

And even people who are in favor of balance may not necessarily see balance as more important than everything else... in which case doing something to increase balance but detracts from something else that is more important is not a good thing.


Detractors? I'm not talking about character deaths, I'm talking about swapping characters in and out while one is training or healing up, and the use of henchmen/retainers who then become pcs in their own right after a while. I never played 1e that way.

Crow
2009-12-28, 05:25 PM
i always push my DM to give me point buy and average HP (round down, full on first level).

I had guessed as much. :)

I give players full hp at first level, and offer the option of average (round down) hp on level up or roll for it.

edit: Well said, Jayabalard

Friend Computer
2009-12-28, 05:27 PM
How about no.
We don't need to all be playing commoners to have a balanced game.
Yes, a wizard as written should not be playing with a fighter as written. The fighter should get some boosts.
Your assertion is similar to that of smokers who say "there is pollution in the air anyways, so why should I quit smoking?"
Just because there IS imbalance in the system doesn't mean we should intentionally introduce easily removed imbalances and refuse to remove them at any cost.

Balancing wizards and fighters is hard. Balancing point buy is easy. Since striving for balance is a good thing, you should use point buy... likewise, you should use LA for monster races to further balance the game, and give some extra stuff to the poor fighter to balance him with the wizard.

But to argue that the game is broken anyways so we should either intentionally introduce unbalancing like roll for stats is just a strawman argument and a logical fallacy.
You call my post a strawman and yet... You talk about something I didn't even mention.

My post, if you bothered to read it (which is doubtful) said that high number point-buys are unnecessary, and that everyone should be forced to play with the non-standard array to see just how much more powerful their characters are, compared to run-of-the-mill NPCs.

Do I think your post was a strawman? No. I just think you didn't bother to actually read my post and see what it was actually saying before you posted your reply. Still intellectually lazy though.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 05:33 PM
I apologize for the misunderstanding. It seemed to me like you were in defense of rolling stats...

If comparing array, point buy, and rolling. Rolling is inherently unbalanced and introduces luck to the equation.
Point buy can be min maxed by players to different degree; but is not affected by luck.

While an array is indeed the most balanced of the three as it allows less min maxing than point buy. And eliminates luck from the equation (to an equal degree as point buy does).

LibraryOgre
2009-12-28, 05:44 PM
Actually, this is a good question for 3.5 players as well. How many of you roll hit points each level? If so, why not ability scores?

Last game of 3.x I was in, we had point buy and static hp-per-level (set at about 3/4 of the maximum).

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 05:58 PM
No, that's Moldvay. That's why I used the word in the first place. Then I noted that Mentzer (p. P48 and D15) doesn't use the word "hopeless" though he uses the same criteria for allowing rolling up a new PC. So if the word "hopeless" bothers you, then Mentzer (the BECMI author) just viewed those scores as "suitable for re-rolling" without calling them hopeless.

Ah, I see, I missed the change between Moldvay and Mentzer.
It remains that Moldvay did in fact use it.

As for the word bothering me, why should it? It is more than obvious that the concept of certain characters generated by die roll simply not being good enough has existed for a very long time.


I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.
In 3E, a 16 Str means that you have +3 to hit and damage. Even as a raw recruit, your attack rolls are as good as those of a typical human guard of a couple levels higher (War3). Your immense Strength means you do 67% more damage with a longsword than an ordinary human does. A 16 Dex means that in a simple chain shirt you are as hard to injure as an ordinary warrior in half-plate.

In 1E, a 16 Str means you get +1 damage and no bonus to hit.

A 16 does much, much more in placing you head and shoulders above "normal" people in 3E than it did in 1E.

In 1st ed:
A 16 Str is +0 to hit, +1 damage.
A 10-15 Str is +0 to hit, +1 damage.
More than just the "average" person with a 10-11 Strength had no bonus to hit or damage.

In 3E:
A 16 Str is +3 to hit and damage.
A 15 Str, which an elite fighter NPC can easily have, is +2 to hit and damage.
A 13 Str, which a standard warrior NPC can easily have, is +1 to hit and damage.
The "average" NPC has a bonus, and the "elite" NPC has a greater bonus.

Taking a 0-level NPC in 1st ed as "standard array", and an actual 1st level NPC in 1st as "elite array", for a 3E PC to retain the same difference in capability, he does in fact need a 16 Str, and not just a 15 Str.

Swordgleam
2009-12-28, 06:06 PM
My opinion is completely informed by the fact that I suck at rolling up characters. Rolls for skill checks, attacks, all that, my luck is fine - but put 3 or 4d6 in my hand and tell me to roll for stats, and so many 1s come up you'd think it was singles night out.

So that said, I like point-buy for long games, but rolling is fine and fun for one-shots.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 06:11 PM
Taking a 0-level NPC in 1st ed as "standard array", and an actual 1st level NPC in 1st as "elite array", for a 3E PC to retain the same difference in capability, he does in fact need a 16 Str, and not just a 15 Str.
If you define the elite-array NPC as the baseline to which you are comparing your PCs, then obviously PCs need to be above the elite array to be superior to the "average".

I look at the "non-elite array" (13 12 11 10 9 8) as the baseline for most classed NPCs, which means that the "elite array" for PCs (15 14 13 12 10 8) places them considerably above the norm. A PC with the elite array can be stronger, tougher, faster, and qualify for feats that the "ordinary" NPC just can't, and he has max hp at first level, which non-elite NPCs don't. I apply the elite array to NPCs when the intention is "these guys are just as tough/skilled/special as you are."

deuxhero
2009-12-28, 06:21 PM
The DMG suggests "elite" stats are 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 which is 25 points and perfectly reasonable. Most monsters are built on the common array.

Based on the comments in this topic, people who favor the point buy refuse to do anything less than 28. I guess a "good" character is impossible if you have a penalty or one of your ability scores isn't 16?

elite mooks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EliteMooks) not player characters (hence why it is in the DMG, no the PHB).

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 06:28 PM
elite mooks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EliteMooks) not player characters (hence why it is in the DMG, no the PHB).
Yeah, but what the PHB has to say on the subject is that scores are considered "too low" and should be rerolled if no score is above 13 or if the total of the modifiers is +0 or less. The "elite array" is perfectly suitable by the PHB guidelines. Not surprisingly, this is the exact set of scores used in the PHB example.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-28, 06:32 PM
If you define the elite-array NPC as the baseline to which you are comparing your PCs, then obviously PCs need to be above the elite array to be superior to the "average".

See deuxhero's previous post.

Equal to elite mooks still leaves them at the level of mooks.
Mooks, elite or otherwise, are not heroes (or villains).

Fhaolan
2009-12-28, 06:33 PM
*sigh*

This is not really an 'edition' issue as much as a style and intent issue. The intent has changed a lot over the last thirty-some years, and this is one of the focal points of that change.

When I started playing it was 3d6 in order, no rerolls. Yes, this produced characters that sucked, and likely did not produce the character that you wanted to play that specific time. Why was it acceptable? Was it because everyone was stupid then? No.

It was because playing the game started with character generation, not when the DM dropped you into the dungeon. You didn't go in saying 'I want to play a Half-Elf Wizard', and then rolled up stats; you rolled up stats and then said, 'What I can make of this?' How can I, as a supposedly intelligent person, make something survivable out of this mess of numbers?

If you were a lucky sort, you got stats good enough to start one of the rare character types, like a Ranger. If you were unlucky, you ended up with a half-orc thief... or maybe nothing as there were technically ways to end up with stats that wouldn't allow any race/class combos.

As for rolling level on a 1d20, suggested earlier, it's more like 1d10 in those days, and that kind of level disparity would happen naturally in many games. Because you normally started the character at level 1 after your previous character kicked it, or you got bored and retired the original character, the new character would likely join the existing party. You'd end up with character levels ranging from 1-10 fairly easily. Games that went on beyond 10th level were rare as the characters rarely progressed in power much past that point (a few more hit points, and that's it for most), so the temptation to just starting again was high.

D&D was the *nice* version of this philosophy at that. There were other systems where the character may not even survive the generation phase. Traveller, for instance, had a section of character generation where you were randomly rolling for what kind of life the character had before he/she became an adventurer, and one of the random options near the end of the rather long process was 'Ooops, killed, start again from step 1: attribute rolls'.

It was a different way of playing, with a different intent. People keep saying "You shouldn't be trying to 'win' D&D"... that may be true, but there used to be many, many ways to lose.

Now-adays people are less interested in that part of the game, or want to do theoretical builds and the like. So, the games have changed to match this change in intent. That's all. It's not that the older games are 'bad', just that the intent was quite different.

Aldizog
2009-12-28, 06:51 PM
See deuxhero's previous post.

Equal to elite mooks still leaves them at the level of mooks.
Mooks, elite or otherwise, are not heroes (or villains).
A 1st-level elite array fighter, whether a protagonist or an antagonist, is a highly skilled and trained warrior, not a "mook." At 12 hp, he can likely withstand a ballista bolt and keep fighting (2 if he has Diehard). He should value his own life and try to use clever tactics to defeat opponents that outmatch him in power. I dislike the trope of him being some inferior class of human being that exists to miss all the time, go down in one hit, never take a glancing blow, and die in large numbers.

If I give somebody the elite array and max hp, then I am saying they are just as tough, trained, and special as the PCs. PCs have to get by on being clever, careful, and creative, not some superior race of being called "protagonist."

And 3.5 is quite clear that the elite array is suitable for PCs.

Thurbane
2009-12-28, 06:57 PM
Alright, this topic's pretty self-explainatory, what do you prefer between pointbuy and rolling?

I like pointbuy. Never liked rolling at all, too many bad experiences turned me off of it.
Pointbuy is good, but for me, nothing beats the excitement of rolling ability scores. Sure, there's a chance your going to roll badly, but most fair DMs will allow a re-roll on a truly unplayable set of score.

Our group usually uses 4d6 best 3, reroll of any 1d6 allowed, arrange as desired. One of the guys rolled up a character last night using this method: 18, 16, 14, 12, 12, 12...needless to say, he was pretty happy. His previous character, using the same method, rolled poorly, but he stuck with the character anyway.

taltamir
2009-12-28, 06:59 PM
This is not really an 'edition' issue as much as a style and intent issue. The intent has changed a lot over the last thirty-some years, and this is one of the focal points of that change.

When I started playing it was 3d6 in order, no rerolls. Yes, this produced characters that sucked, and likely did not produce the character that you wanted to play that specific time. Why was it acceptable? Was it because everyone was stupid then? No.

You are not stupid for playing like that, it is just an odd mechanic that does not contribute to fun...

"oops, you rolled badly on character creation, throw away your last hour of work and start over" is funny in theory, to read, once... it is a stupid rule for the publisher to include because it is not fun and serves no purpose.
It is not that people are stupid for playing with such a rule, they are simply following the rules as written to keep things simple. But it does detract from their fun that the publishers chose to make such rules...

maybe there are some people out there that enjoy rolling a worthless character to play second fiddle to their friend who got lucky on char gen... but generally people are there to play, not sit on the sideline and cheer their friend for 3 months of sessions because the rolled badly once on the first day.


Pointbuy is good, but for me, nothing beats the excitement of rolling ability scores. Sure, there's a chance your going to roll badly, but most fair DMs will allow a re-roll on a truly unplayable set of score.

Our group usually uses 4d6 best 3, reroll of any 1d6 allowed, arrange as desired. One of the guys rolled up a character last night using this method: 18, 16, 14, 12, 12, 12...needless to say, he was pretty happy. His previous character, using the same method, rolled poorly, but he stuck with the character anyway.

statistically speaking I am tempted a lot by some point buy schemes, since sometimes it is just too good to pass... 4d6 best 3, reroll all 1s... or 25 point buy...
statistically you are gonna get much better scores than 25 point buy by rolling... it is a very low risk very high reward tactic...

Thurbane
2009-12-28, 07:10 PM
D&D was the *nice* version of this philosophy at that. There were other systems where the character may not even survive the generation phase. Traveller, for instance, had a section of character generation where you were randomly rolling for what kind of life the character had before he/she became an adventurer, and one of the random options near the end of the rather long process was 'Ooops, killed, start again from step 1: attribute rolls'.
I laugh when I think back on 1E Twilight 2000 char gen. You'd roll after each year (?) of your characters life, until you got a result of "War breaks out", so your character would be of random starting age.

If you were very young, you'd have very few skills and not be particularly good at anything. If you were too old, you'd have a ton of skills, but your physical attrobutes would be hampered by age. And you'd also roll to see how much post-apocalypse radiation you'd soaked up! :smalltongue:

Artanis
2009-12-28, 07:19 PM
statistically you are gonna get much better scores than 25 point buy by rolling...

Indeed.

Just out of curiosity, I looked and found where people had actually done the math, and it turns out that 4d6 drop 1 averages out to ~30 points :smallsmile:

Longcat
2009-12-28, 08:14 PM
Rolling for Stats? No
Rolling for HP? No

While random rolls tend to be fun, they really create more frustratition than anything else.

jmbrown
2009-12-28, 08:20 PM
You are not stupid for playing like that, it is just an odd mechanic that does not contribute to fun...

"oops, you rolled badly on character creation, throw away your last hour of work and start over" is funny in theory, to read, once... it is a stupid rule for the publisher to include because it is not fun and serves no purpose.
It is not that people are stupid for playing with such a rule, they are simply following the rules as written to keep things simple. But it does detract from their fun that the publishers chose to make such rules...

maybe there are some people out there that enjoy rolling a worthless character to play second fiddle to their friend who got lucky on char gen... but generally people are there to play, not sit on the sideline and cheer their friend for 3 months of sessions because the rolled badly once on the first day.

They also encouraged the DM to simply increase a few ability scores to the base minimum.

But as it stands, your characters could do a lot with very little. This is in stark contrast to 3E where your character can do little with a lot unless you work extra hard to optimize him or you're a tier 1-2 class.

I could play a strength 9 fighter. I'd probably stick to the back tossing daggers but I could very well play him. A 13 intelligence wizard could always resort to scrolls and since saving throws were based on the opponent and not his ability score, the spells he could cast were always potent.

Now we come to the gap in opinion because what isn't fun to me is having everyone be the same. The idea that adventurers are brewed in a factory with the only difference being their power load out makes for very generic world building.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-28, 08:34 PM
I still maintain the answer is different dependent upon edition played. Can you even play an edition of TSR D&D with point buy? I've never heard of it being done. What's the point buy on 18/01 str vs 18/99? I guess you could point buy up to 18, then roll for percentile, but still, I think there'd be a lot of classes you couldn't even qualify for with point buy unless you set the points really high. How high would the point buy number have to be to play a paladin or ranger?

Point buy makes sense (though I still don't think I'd use it) for 3E where ability score requirements don't exist for the classes and you have a build in mind ahead of time.

Thurbane
2009-12-28, 08:36 PM
I still maintain the answer is different dependent upon edition played. Can you even play an edition of TSR D&D with point buy? I've never heard of it being done. What's the point buy on 18/01 str vs 18/99? I guess you could point buy up to 18, then roll for percentile, but still, I think there'd be a lot of classes you couldn't even qualify for with point buy unless you set the points really high. How high would the point buy number have to be to play a paladin or ranger?

Point buy makes sense (though I still don't think I'd use it) for 3E where ability score requirements don't exist for the classes and you have a build in mind ahead of time.
In our 1E and 2E games we'd houserule a type of point buy (on the rare occassions we didn't roll, usually for 1 shot tournament modules). You'd get 72 points, with abilities bought on a 1 for 1 basis (and 18 percentile STR was still rolled randomly).

jmbrown
2009-12-28, 08:49 PM
I still maintain the answer is different dependent upon edition played. Can you even play an edition of TSR D&D with point buy? I've never heard of it being done. What's the point buy on 18/01 str vs 18/99? I guess you could point buy up to 18, then roll for percentile, but still, I think there'd be a lot of classes you couldn't even qualify for with point buy unless you set the points really high. How high would the point buy number have to be to play a paladin or ranger?

Point buy makes sense (though I still don't think I'd use it) for 3E where ability score requirements don't exist for the classes and you have a build in mind ahead of time.

Both editions of AD&D have listed a primitive point buy system. 2E has my favorite where all attributes start at 8 and then you roll 7d6. You can add each individual dice rolled to what ability score you want as long as it doesn't exceed 18. There couldn't be any remainders so to get an 18 you would need to add a 6 and an 4 to your 8 or other combination.

On average you would get an 11 or 12 in each attribute except one which would be "exceptional" at 14-15. You could still get a generic character (9-10 across the board) but it was rare and you had a far greater chance to play the advanced classes. The system allowed for more heroic characters so PCs didn't have an attribute with 3-7 points in it.

I think I'm going to do my future 3.5 point buy like that system.

Friend Computer
2009-12-28, 10:04 PM
In 1st ed:
A 16 Str is +0 to hit, +1 damage.
A 10-15 Str is +0 to hit, +1 damage.
More than just the "average" person with a 10-11 Strength had no bonus to hit or damage.

In 3E:
A 16 Str is +3 to hit and damage.
A 15 Str, which an elite fighter NPC can easily have, is +2 to hit and damage.
A 13 Str, which a standard warrior NPC can easily have, is +1 to hit and damage.
The "average" NPC has a bonus, and the "elite" NPC has a greater bonus.

Taking a 0-level NPC in 1st ed as "standard array", and an actual 1st level NPC in 1st as "elite array", for a 3E PC to retain the same difference in capability, he does in fact need a 16 Str, and not just a 15 Str.

There are three arrays:
Standard (10's and 11's)
Non-Standard (8-13)
Elite (8-15)
The standard array is almost everyone in the game world. It is so much so, that the monsters in the MM are made using it. Mooks go here.

The non-standard array provides people who are skilled in some areas and hampered in other areas. Such people are usually the type who will excell in their profession, as they will probably have the necessary skills. This is where elite mooks go.

The elite array is for the best-of-the-best. PC's and major NPCs go here. The Big Bad, the Dragon, and possibly a few direct underlings of the BB fit into this slot.

Thurbane
2009-12-28, 10:45 PM
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all NPCs in my game with "player" class levels (i.e. not NPC classes only) use the elite (8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) array.

Draz74
2009-12-28, 10:48 PM
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all NPCs in my game with "player" class levels (i.e. not NPC classes only) use the elite (8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) array.

I believe that's exactly what the rules say to do.

The 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 array is for NPCs who are "noteworthy" in the campaign but still have their levels in NPC classes.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-28, 11:14 PM
I love pt buy. Why? Because I had one char, in a 3d6 in order system with 9 stats, 2 4d6b3 rerolls for individual stats, that ended up with 8 stats from 5-10 and a single 15. The DM made me play him. I prefer games where I can be assured that I will be allowed to actually contribute to the party. Pt buy gives me that, random rolling does not.

Pluto
2009-12-28, 11:33 PM
I've always rolled for stats except in PbP games. It distinguishes characters and tends to give some interesting quirks, even if it's what some people would call unbalanced.

While this "balance" idea might matter in a competitive environment, I can only think of one time that it's affected a game.

Some players roll higher stats than others.
Some characters die and rejoin the party a level behind.
Some die twice.

Characters are rarely what anybody would call balanced in terms of raw power, but players usually get similar playing time and similar influence on the plot. If you have weak stats, you avoid combat and do something else.

You might be one of the group that has to figure out how to activate the door switch while the players with more powerful classes or stat rolls fend off the zombies. Or you might spend combat sneaking across the walls above the dragon to pour boiling oil on its head. Or you might have to resort to using one of the scrolls the Wizard supplied you with. Or you enter a class where your abilities mostly don't matter (read: "a casting class").

The only time I've seen low abilities detract from a game was when a player rolled low stats all around and decided to play a straight-classed Fighter. 1 skill point per level, a weak skill list and no out-of-combat abilities doesn't really let you add much to the group beyond just being a warm body. Every low-statted character who's gone into a real class (Wizard, Ranger, Rogue, even Barbarian) has had something to add to the game, whether it was stealing the MacGuffin while the baddies were distracted or whether it was taking the controls of an airship as it plummeted toward the earth.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-29, 12:00 AM
It was because playing the game started with character generation, not when the DM dropped you into the dungeon. You didn't go in saying 'I want to play a Half-Elf Wizard', and then rolled up stats; you rolled up stats and then said, 'What I can make of this?' How can I, as a supposedly intelligent person, make something survivable out of this mess of numbers?

And over time, players expressed that they did not like starting the game at that point, and that they preferred actually being able to play a character they wanted to rather than whatever they could kludge out of some random die rolls.
And various core rules authors listened to them, recognizing that just as miniature war games do not typically start with random die rolls for starting forces, particularly not in extended campaigns, it made sense for a role-playing game not to start that way either.
It did not make people who played back then stupid, it just made us the ones playing the early versions of the game, before the rules were adjusted to account for such other factors.


D&D was the *nice* version of this philosophy at that. There were other systems where the character may not even survive the generation phase. Traveller, for instance, had a section of character generation where you were randomly rolling for what kind of life the character had before he/she became an adventurer, and one of the random options near the end of the rather long process was 'Ooops, killed, start again from step 1: attribute rolls'.

Yes it did.
Then as soon as a revision of those rules was printed, it was changed so that failing a survival check just mustered you out immediately.
Subsequent editions of the game added even more ability to select specific career choices, move between careers, survive character generation, and, most critically, select specific skills.


Now-adays people are less interested in that part of the game, or want to do theoretical builds and the like. So, the games have changed to match this change in intent. That's all. It's not that the older games are 'bad', just that the intent was quite different.

While the specific kind of optimizing currently available is new, power gaming has been around from the beginning, with players always looking for another way to tweak just a bit more out of the system.
Likewise a greater attachment to characters than is typically conceded has always been there.
However the greatest contributor to point buy stats in D&D has, I believe, always been something completely different. It became the primary method because of organized play, specifically the RPGA Living City campaign. You would have to do some serious digging to find them now, but I still recall the various announcements back when the campaign started when they had to try and get character creation under control. Standardizing ability score generation was almost a minor consideration to controlling what splat books could be used. That creating a "level" and "fair" starting point for organized play just happens to produce benefits in character survivability is more a happy cincidence than a deliberate scheme.


And 3.5 is quite clear that the elite array is suitable for PCs.

It is clear it is suitable as the minimum for PCs.
And it is.
It also tacitly acknowledges that there are levels above that minimum that are also suitable for PCs.


The elite array is for the best-of-the-best. PC's and major NPCs go here. The Big Bad, the Dragon, and possibly a few direct underlings of the BB fit into this slot.

The elite array is above average, but it is hardly best-of-the-best. That is why nonstandard point buy exists, with the Low-powered, Challenging, Tougher, and High-Powered point levels. Pretty obviously, the Tougher and High-Powered point levels are better than elite.
Of course if one examined various published adventures, one would soon discover that even that is not always enough. Paizo adventures routinely feature a BBEG who not only has a higher basic point buy, but also gets a bunch of innate ability score bonuses, the equivalent effect of multiple wishes or stat bump books used.

Aldizog
2009-12-29, 12:17 AM
It is clear it is suitable as the minimum for PCs.
And it is.
It also tacitly acknowledges that there are levels above that minimum that are also suitable for PCs.
There are also levels below that "minimum" that are suitable for PCs. You yourself note that 3.5 offers the Low-powered and Challenging point buys for PCs.

The 3.5 PHB also describes "no score above 13" or "total of modifiers +0 or less" to be reroll range, so the minimum would then be a 14 or total modifiers of +1. That's below Elite Array.

The mininum of "acceptable" PCs is going to vary a great deal from campaign to campaign. 3.5's bare-bones minimum might be well below your personal threshold; many of us are happy in lower-powered games.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-29, 12:23 AM
There are also levels below that "minimum" that are suitable for PCs. You yourself note that 3.5 offers the Low-powered and Challenging point buys for PCs.

The 3.5 PHB also describes "no score above 13" or "total of modifiers +0 or less" to be reroll range, so the minimum would then be a 14 or total modifiers of +1. That's below Elite Array.

The mininum of "acceptable" PCs is going to vary a great deal from campaign to campaign. 3.5's bare-bones minimum might be well below your personal threshold; many of us are happy in lower-powered games.The problem is when you have one character with a 11/10/11/9/12/13 and one character with 16/15/17/14/18/18. That sort of disparity basically makes one player useless. I'd be willing to take the lost level from dying and rolling up a new character rather than try to play with that. I've done it, but I wouldn't repeat the experience.

Grumman
2009-12-29, 12:48 AM
Actually, this is a good question for 3.5 players as well. How many of you roll hit points each level? If so, why not ability scores?
I normally choose to roll. But that's only because I play characters with enough CON that rolling a 1 isn't catastrophic. A level 2 warblade with 16 CON still has 19 hp, even if he rolls a 1.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 12:57 AM
*sigh*

This is not really an 'edition' issue as much as a style and intent issue. The intent has changed a lot over the last thirty-some years, and this is one of the focal points of that change.

When I started playing it was 3d6 in order, no rerolls. Yes, this produced characters that sucked, and likely did not produce the character that you wanted to play that specific time. Why was it acceptable? Was it because everyone was stupid then? No.

It was because playing the game started with character generation, not when the DM dropped you into the dungeon. You didn't go in saying 'I want to play a Half-Elf Wizard', and then rolled up stats; you rolled up stats and then said, 'What I can make of this?' How can I, as a supposedly intelligent person, make something survivable out of this mess of numbers?

If you were a lucky sort, you got stats good enough to start one of the rare character types, like a Ranger. If you were unlucky, you ended up with a half-orc thief... or maybe nothing as there were technically ways to end up with stats that wouldn't allow any race/class combos.

As for rolling level on a 1d20, suggested earlier, it's more like 1d10 in those days, and that kind of level disparity would happen naturally in many games. Because you normally started the character at level 1 after your previous character kicked it, or you got bored and retired the original character, the new character would likely join the existing party. You'd end up with character levels ranging from 1-10 fairly easily. Games that went on beyond 10th level were rare as the characters rarely progressed in power much past that point (a few more hit points, and that's it for most), so the temptation to just starting again was high.

D&D was the *nice* version of this philosophy at that. There were other systems where the character may not even survive the generation phase. Traveller, for instance, had a section of character generation where you were randomly rolling for what kind of life the character had before he/she became an adventurer, and one of the random options near the end of the rather long process was 'Ooops, killed, start again from step 1: attribute rolls'.

It was a different way of playing, with a different intent. People keep saying "You shouldn't be trying to 'win' D&D"... that may be true, but there used to be many, many ways to lose.

Now-adays people are less interested in that part of the game, or want to do theoretical builds and the like. So, the games have changed to match this change in intent. That's all. It's not that the older games are 'bad', just that the intent was quite different.
Just so.

Consequently, WotC D&D, with its emphasis on character-sheet building, makes rolling stats a disfavored method of character generation. Not only are stats incredibly important to character survivability (as opposed to TSR D&D where player ability was more important), but so many features of the game are reliant on stat thresholds.

4E turns this up to 11, of course - I haven't seen anyone generating characters with dice rolls, nor do I expect to.

On a sidenote - arrays versus point buys. I must admit that I prefer arrays to PBs despite arrays producing more "standardized" characters. Why? Because I hate dump stats, and PBs put a lot of pressure on players to get 2 extra BPs by knocking a "useless" stat down to 8. This is, of course, purely aesthetic and while I haven't had any mutinies from my players because of it, I'll likely allow straight PBs in the future.

It just seems like the proper course for 4e.

Of course, in my always-forthcoming AD&D game I'll be using 3d6, in order :smallamused:

Solaris
2009-12-29, 01:10 AM
The raw hatred I have for point-buy unmade my earlier post. I'm not at all a fan of the artificially-enforced equality of characters.
I once ran in a party that had my brother's paladin, 18/00 Str, the rest of the stats were 18, 18, 15, 16, and 18 (in that order). My character? Fighter. Average abilities except for an 18 Con. I somehow managed to keep up and not die even without abilities to match his. A powerful character is no match for a cowardly streak a mile wide quick thinking and quicker wit.

Friend Computer
2009-12-29, 01:38 AM
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all NPCs in my game with "player" class levels (i.e. not NPC classes only) use the elite (8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) array.
No, that isn't doing it wrong.

If, however, you were to use said characters as mooks, elite or not, you would be. The PC classes are super special, and as such should not be mooks.

Mooks should be NPC classes, elite mooks should have NPC classes and non-standard arrays, while important characters, both goodies and badies who have an actual impact on the game world should have PC classes and elite array stats. But that is moving into game world design, and people not really understanding what '13 intelligence, 9 charisma and 11 strength' actually represent, rather than talking about dice or point-buy.

My original point, however, was that people need to understand what scores mean, and understand just how much more powerful a non-standard array character is, compared to a standard array NPC. Maybe at that point they will stop complaining about needing 32 point buy to have a 'competent' character, and will accept that even 3d6-in-order can be awesome fun.

Artanis
2009-12-29, 02:24 AM
My original point, however, was that people need to understand what scores mean, and understand just how much more powerful a non-standard array character is, compared to a standard array NPC. Maybe at that point they will stop complaining about needing 32 point buy to have a 'competent' character, and will accept that even 3d6-in-order can be awesome fun.

The game is designed around characters with stats equivalent to a 30 point buy.

Grumman
2009-12-29, 02:32 AM
Maybe at that point they will stop complaining about needing 32 point buy to have a 'competent' character, and will accept that even 3d6-in-order can be awesome fun.
I wonder if you'd change your tune about 3d6-in-order the first time you rolled a 5 or less for CON.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 02:38 AM
The game is designed around characters with stats equivalent to a 30 point buy.

Evidence?

I thought the game was designed around 4d6b3 for each stat ... and I've seen some pretty convincing mathematical analyses that concluded this was closest to 28-point buy.


I wonder if you'd change your tune about 3d6-in-order the first time you rolled a 5 or less for CON.

Raistlin, anyone? (One of the great D&D characters of all time started with a very low rolled CON ...)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 02:40 AM
I wonder if you'd change your tune about 3d6-in-order the first time you rolled a 5 or less for CON.
Quick Poll - those with roll-related traumas: was this in D&D as run by TSR or by WotC?

This is important because under TSR, a CON of 5, while bad, was not as game-destroying as under WotC.

I'm willing to bet the traumatized had this happen in a WotC D&D game, while the others were playing TSR D&D.

Anyone wish to test the hypothesis?

Killer Angel
2009-12-29, 03:25 AM
I want to ask you people, how much real difference a 15 has made as opposed to an 18 once you stop looking at the sheet and play the characters? For a melee character, it's the difference of a flank. For a wizard, it's 2 starting spells (and doesn't limit spells he laearns later). It's a 10% difference on the roll of a d20. Seriously folks, over the course of a campaign, the difference isn't as noticable as everyone says.

Au contraire (bolded mine).
On a single roll, a 10% difference most of times don't matter. On the course of a campaign, after a lot of rolls, that difference starts to kick: the character with a +2 bonus, will be exactly 10% more efficient than the other. For a fighter with 15 str, it means that you need 2 levels, to compensate with BAB your poor to hit bonus (without compensating the damage output), and so on.

And that, assuming that one 15 and one 18 is the only difference. With rolling dices, I've seen a friend of mine ending (before racial adj) with three friggin 18, while my highest roll was a (lonely) 16. The power gap was staggering.

Friend Computer
2009-12-29, 04:09 AM
The game is designed around characters with stats equivalent to a 30 point buy.
The game, afaik, is designed assuming the elite array, which is 28 pb, iirc.
But regardless of the factual in/correctness of your statement, it is methodologically wrong, and doesn't address my point. My point is that high scores are far from necessary to play the game, and far from necessary to have a heroic character. As I said in a post above, compare the likely stats of a PC fighter with the non-standard array with an NPC warrior with the standard array, and you will see that the fighter is extremely competent, and more than twice as good as the warrior (assuming max HP for first HD for the PC and half HP for the first HD for the warrior). That is, my posts are comparing mundane humans to PC humans of a given ability to show how capableof heroic feats characters with even two +1's are, compared to the 11's-and-10's of the world.

@Grumman:
In point buy games I have given myself 6 con. In 3.5. So yeah...
But I understand your point: Would I still say that 3d6 organic is good if I got an aweful role. Yes, I would. Being pissed at the dice is not the same as abandoning the system that uses those dice.

oprishon
2009-12-29, 04:33 AM
The game is designed around characters with stats equivalent to a 30 point buy.


Evidence?

I thought the game was designed around 4d6b3 for each stat ... and I've seen some pretty convincing mathematical analyses that concluded this was closest to 28-point buy.



You're both right. Check out http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html. An average set of 4d6b3 gives you 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9. That's a split-the-difference 29-point buy.

PCs that do standard rolling are invariably stronger than NPCs. In over 70% of cases, that even includes NPCs with the elite array.

FFTGeist
2009-12-29, 04:46 AM
Rolling 4d6 drop the lowest.

Or when they make me angry i say 3d6 in order for stats. :smallannoyed:

tcrudisi
2009-12-29, 05:13 AM
What I get tired of under point-buy is that everything is so optimized. Rolling gave you the unexpected, which added a touch of realism. A particular wizard might happen to be rather strong. Not because his build calls for him to get Power Attack at some point, but just because he's a strong and smart guy that decided to become a wizard. A fighter might be more charismatic than average, or a cleric might be quicker than you'd expect. Not because it's optimal for him, but because that's just what his abilities happen to be. Makes the PCs feel a little more real to me.

This made me laugh because I look at point buy completely differently. To me, point buy is far more realistic. People tend to gravitate towards what they are best at. If you are very smart but not very strong, would you still be a Fighter? No, you would choose to learn something you would be good at (like a Wizard). Of course, if you are both strong and smart, why sure, you might become both a Fighter and a Wizard -- but you could be good at both then.

grautry
2009-12-29, 06:45 AM
Au contraire (bolded mine).
On a single roll, a 10% difference most of times don't matter. On the course of a campaign, after a lot of rolls, that difference starts to kick: the character with a +2 bonus, will be exactly 10% more efficient than the other. For a fighter with 15 str, it means that you need 2 levels, to compensate with BAB your poor to hit bonus (without compensating the damage output), and so on.

The gain is probably even bigger for casters.

The difference between a 15 and an 18 in a primary casting stat is the difference of +2 DC on spells.

This is a huge difference, it's equivalent to Heightening every single spell by two spell levels. Or, it's a free Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus in everything.

It means that if you have two wizards in a party, one with Intelligence 15 and one with 18 then the one with higher Intelligence will be able to(at least in some cases) throw around spells that are two levels lower and still maintain a similar effectiveness.

So he'll all around be more powerful, more efficient and he'll get bonus spells on top of that.

This might go away once Polymorph Any Object comes into play but that's a long way to go.

So yeah, it's a big difference.

Fhaolan
2009-12-29, 09:15 AM
I wonder if you'd change your tune about 3d6-in-order the first time you rolled a 5 or less for CON.

Heck, I've made a character with a 3 CON in AD&D once. Of course, by the rules he could only be a human illusionist, and had a -2 Hit Point Adjustment. Which wasn't that bad in that system.

robotrobot2
2009-12-29, 09:33 AM
Point buy statistically comes up with results slightly lower than rolling. Basically, your trading raw modifiers for customization. Depending on the type of character, one of those two might be more important. For something ridiculously MAD, I almost always roll.

Aldizog
2009-12-29, 10:08 AM
This made me laugh because I look at point buy completely differently. To me, point buy is far more realistic. People tend to gravitate towards what they are best at. If you are very smart but not very strong, would you still be a Fighter? No, you would choose to learn something you would be good at (like a Wizard). Of course, if you are both strong and smart, why sure, you might become both a Fighter and a Wizard -- but you could be good at both then.
You still have that when you roll in order -- the player chooses a class based on the abilities, just as the character does within the game world. "I'm strong, but I'm also really smart; what do I want to do?" "I'm wise but I'm also really agile; what do I want to do?" You can also give players a degree of control without total optimization by going 4d6b3 in order, switch any two.

Think of it in terms of the second-highest stats, not the highest. With rolled scores in order (or switch any two), the cleric might still have Wis as his highest score, but then Dex as the second-highest. You almost never see that in point buy (or with scores arranged completely to taste). That's the kind of unexpected strength I'm talking about. Or a wizard who has Str as their second-highest, or a fighter who has Cha as his second-highest.

The center on a football team might have a 150 IQ. A physics professor might be able to bench-press 300 lbs. A heavy metal singer might also be a champion fencer. Not because it's necessary for what they do, it's just another strength they happen to have.

I don't claim that this makes the characters more interesting, but rather that it makes them feel more real. The parade of "optimal" cookie-cutter wizards with Int/Con/Dex/Wis/Str/Cha in basically that order is more jarring to suspension of disbelief that magic per se is. The latter requires assuming different rules of the reality, which is a staple of fantasy; the former requires assuming vastly different human nature, which is not. I suppose one could claim that the shools of magic have some serious lethal tests that ensure nobody of merely-average health or agility ever makes it through. But as to "oh, those guys just don't choose to become adventurers"? In the games I've seen, PCs are often thrown into becoming "adventurers" by circumstances.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-29, 10:12 AM
Heck, I've made a character with a 3 CON in AD&D once. Of course, by the rules he could only be a human illusionist, and had a -2 Hit Point Adjustment. Which wasn't that bad in that system.

Ahhh, our DM's brief fixation on 3d6-in-order games. I managed to roll a ranger, having nothing above a 14. Fun game, though a heck of a lot harder.

Noble Savant
2009-12-29, 10:48 AM
Personally I don't mind either system. I've always had fairly bad luck with rolling myself, but it doesn't really detract from the game.

However, there is nothing that annoys me more then people who say that rolling makes for more interesting characters. If you need your character to have a 5 in Strength to be interesting, then you need to learn to write. There are so very many different ways to play a character, so many flaws and traits that don't *require* you to have low or high stats somewhere, (this includes clumsiness and various degrees of intelligence and cunning.), that relying on your stats to build your character is really quite daft.

In addition point buy doesn't stop you from putting your stats where ever you want. You want to be a strong wizard? Stick some points in Strength, not everyone needs a massive Con score, (as many people have pointed out in this thread). Want to be a clever fighter? Lowering your Strength to 16 from 18 isn't going to cripple your character forever, and will give you ample points for just about anything.

Fhaolan
2009-12-29, 11:13 AM
However, there is nothing that annoys me more then people who say that rolling makes for more interesting characters.

Yeah, the characters themselves aren't more interesting, usually. Unless you count the extra effort needed to figure out the justifications of the character. It's kinda a machochistic thing, really. But then, if you were a D&D player in the early 80's you were likely a machochistic sort anyway. :smallbiggrin: Not just weird, but *aggressively* weird.

Artanis
2009-12-29, 11:25 AM
You're both right. Check out http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html. An average set of 4d6b3 gives you 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9. That's a split-the-difference 29-point buy.

Exactly. 4d6b3 comes out to about 29 or 30 points. Thus, a game designed for 4d6b3 is designed for ~30 point buy.



Edit:

Also, just for the record, I used this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872146/How_many_points_for_a_true_4d6_stat_generation?num =10&pg=1) for the numbers :smallsmile:

Amphetryon
2009-12-29, 11:29 AM
Exactly. 4d6b3 comes out to about 29 or 30 points. Thus, a game designed for 4d6b3 is designed for ~30 point buy.
Except D&D math virtually always* rounds down, making the 15 14 13 12 10 8 a more reasonable expectation within that specific rolling method. Real-world math, 30 points is more accurate.


*I can think of no examples to the contrary off the top of my head, though I'm sure someone will come along posthaste to provide at least one. :smallwink:

Artanis
2009-12-29, 11:40 AM
Except D&D math virtually always* rounds down, making the 15 14 13 12 10 8 a more reasonable expectation within that specific rolling method. Real-world math, 30 points is more accurate.

Which is why I used 30 points in my post, since the rolls themselves are not rounded, and thus what DnD does with rounding is totally irrelevant.

Amphetryon
2009-12-29, 12:02 PM
Which is why I used 30 points in my post, since the rolls themselves are not rounded, and thus what DnD does with rounding is totally irrelevant.

I'm not sure how what DnD does with rounding can be considered irrelevant to a discussion of number generation within DnD.

Aldizog
2009-12-29, 12:17 PM
You're both right. Check out http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html. An average set of 4d6b3 gives you 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9. That's a split-the-difference 29-point buy.

The two advantages of certainty and customization for point buy can balance out the higher expectation value of the 4d6b3. With 25-pt buy, you can have two 16s if that's what you want (and still have points left for a 13); with 4d6b3, by your link, you are only about 20% likely to have two scores of 16+. With 25-pt buy, you can even get an 18, which you are only 11% likely to get in 4d6b3.

Given the choice of 25-pt buy vs. a single set of 4d6b3, I'd imagine that those wanting a SAD class would choose point-buy, and those wanting a MAD class would take 4d6b3.

Considering 29-pt buy as equivalent to 4d6b3 ignores the advantages of certainty and customization.

Artanis
2009-12-29, 12:58 PM
I'm not sure how what DnD does with rounding can be considered irrelevant to a discussion of number generation within DnD.

Because you aren't generating a 16.5 or a 8.1 or a 14.9 or whatever on the dice. When you roll dice, you get whole numbers. Integers. Things that will not be rounded. It doesn't matter what fractions round to because you will never see those fractions.

The math shows you which whole numbers you'll get, and how often you'll get them. The decimals in the real-world math are merely a means of expressing that.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 01:33 PM
However, there is nothing that annoys me more then people who say that rolling makes for more interesting characters. If you need your character to have a 5 in Strength to be interesting, then you need to learn to write. You're presenting a bit of a strawman here; it's not that rolling makes for more interesting characters because people need to have a 5 in strength.

The point is that that creating a character where you don't have complete control over all of the creation process forces you to characterize the person in a very different way than when you have total control; for many* people, this leads to characters that are more interesting because they feel more "real" to them. It's because the character creation process mimics real life, in that you don't get to choose everything, that you aren't totally in control of your life... you don't choose the genes that you inherit, and there are forces beyond your control during your upbringing that limit what you can become.

Just my personal opinion: labeling people who feel this way as "daft" is more than a little insulting.


*that's not to say all, or even a majority; I'm not even going to voice an opinion on which side is in the majority on this issue, since it's not really important.

Fawsto
2009-12-29, 02:10 PM
Probably Ninja'd but...


It gets much more uglier when the two styles colide in the same campaign... Hell... I am very unlucky rolling for anything that is not in game (stats and HP, to shout it), so I normaly get average HP per level (so I don't keep rolling 1's every level) and I will in most given scenarios use the point buy system.

My most recent campaing had me pbuying and almost every other players rolling for stats. I Used 25. Due to this little shenanigans the group consisted on a lot of characters constructed with the equivalent to 32 pbuy. At least their atrs were somehow mixed up around 18s and 8s. The group's Rogue (the kleptomaniac I mentioned in another thread :smallsigh:), f.ex., has an 20 in Dex while a flat 8 on Con.

Recently the DM closed a major story arc and allowed us to roll new characters if we wanted. This time I casted a similar effect to a major blessing on my dice and rolled a new character with above the heroic stats. I was pretty lucky. However, I still take average HP :smalltongue: .


My conclusion? Pbuy is better in D&D so everybody stays happy. It is a colaboration game, so everybody must share the same initial grounds. You can plan your NPCs and adjust your monsters much easier when your party has this consistency. However, this is my Op.

Peace

taltamir
2009-12-29, 02:39 PM
The two advantages of certainty and customization for point buy can balance out the higher expectation value of the 4d6b3. With 25-pt buy, you can have two 16s if that's what you want (and still have points left for a 13); with 4d6b3, by your link, you are only about 20% likely to have two scores of 16+. With 25-pt buy, you can even get an 18, which you are only 11% likely to get in 4d6b3.

Given the choice of 25-pt buy vs. a single set of 4d6b3, I'd imagine that those wanting a SAD class would choose point-buy, and those wanting a MAD class would take 4d6b3.

Considering 29-pt buy as equivalent to 4d6b3 ignores the advantages of certainty and customization.

somesome suggest giving tier 1 classes 15 point buy and then increase, up to I think it was 60 point buy for tier 5...
a score of 18 in your prime casting stat is 16 points... so you start with 17 int instead of 18... you are still a wizard.

You need to have less than 6 points point buy to start making a wizard non viable.

Twilight Jack
2009-12-29, 02:59 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of every wizard rolling out the gates having an 18 Intelligence. It just messes with my willing suspension of disbelief. So, I've always utilized dice-rolling in my games. My formula is 4d6, drop the lowest die. Roll 7 times, drop the lowest overall score, arrange as desired.

If you are unhappy with your stats for any reason, you may reroll, but you must forever forsake the stats you rolled previously. Every player is limited to 10 possible rolls before they are stuck.

Everyone is generally happy with the characters they get with this method, with only the hardcore min-maxers occasionally getting the shaft (by leaving behind good stats in pursuit of GREAT ones, and running out of chances).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 03:11 PM
You're both right. Check out http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html. An average set of 4d6b3 gives you 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9. That's a split-the-difference 29-point buy.

PCs that do standard rolling are invariably stronger than NPCs. In over 70% of cases, that even includes NPCs with the elite array.

While thats the point buy of an average roll, that is not an average point buy. Let me clarify. Higher scores are of escalating value. Thus, above average rolls results in a much higher point buy value, while a roll that's equally below average results in a point buy value that, while still lower, is closer to that of the average roll.

I'm not going to post the detailed math yet again(search will likely find it), but while an average roll is equivalent to approximately a 29pt buy, on average, 4d6b3 is equivalent to a 32pt buy.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 03:35 PM
having an 18 (before racial mod) int is expensive...
its benefits over a 16?
if you get a +6 item, +5 from levels, and +5 from inherant bonus, you will get 1 extra 8th and one 4th spell slot. a 20 starting int with all those bonuses you get an extra 9th and 5th and 1st slots (in addition to the previously mentioned bonuses)...
since the last +1 happens at level 20... you will not unlock said benefits until level 20. granted you are always a little "ahead"... but usually the bonus spell slots you unlocked are in levels you don't even have access to right now, combined with really low level ones. Rarely (although it is possible) do you get an extra slot of your highest level.

and +1 to your spell DC, that you always get... this is a real "end game" benefit... A 16 int wizard is entirely playable. And having nice con and dex increases your ability to survive long enough to having benefited from that 18 int.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 03:40 PM
20 starting int with all those bonuses you get an extra 9th and 5th and 1st slots (in addition to the previously mentioned bonuses)...

This is huge. Also, an 18 starting bonus with the feat(I forget the name) to get bonus spells as if you had a casting stat 2 higher will also qualify.

The extra 9th level slot alone is a significant power boost, but the power boost exists at all levels.

Would I rather have the +1DC, +20 skill points, +1 to int skills, and bonus spells than some marginal boosts to traditional dump stats? Absolutely.

I think point buy does a decent job of encouraging people not to focus too obsessively, and while the even number thing is routine...that's a mechanical problem created by only even numbers being generally valuable. That's the root problem there, not point buy.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 03:44 PM
While thats the point buy of an average roll, that is not an average point buy. Let me clarify. Higher scores are of escalating value. Thus, above average rolls results in a much higher point buy value, while a roll that's equally below average results in a point buy value that, while still lower, is closer to that of the average roll.

This link (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872146/How_many_points_for_a_true_4d6_stat_generation?num =10&pg=1) that Artanis pointed me to earlier in the thread seems to have taken this phenomenon into account, and still concluded that 29 or 30 point buy is the best simulation of rolled stats.


and +1 to your spell DC, that you always get... this is a real "end game" benefit... A 16 int wizard is entirely playable. And having nice con and dex increases your ability to survive long enough to having benefited from that 18 int.

Color Spray, Sleep, Glitterdust, Charm Person. How exactly is +1 save DCs an "end game effect"? It's a huge benefit at every level.

taltamir
2009-12-29, 03:46 PM
This is huge.
at level 20+, which is the only time you get it.
most games don't last that long... and you sacrifice a concrete benefit that exists since level 1 for a benefit that, while huge, starts at level 20.


Also, an 18 starting bonus with the feat(I forget the name) to get bonus spells as if you had a casting stat 2 higher will also qualify.
ugh, that is a terrible feat, but yes...
heck, a starting of 20 + that feat means you only need to be level 12 (+3 level, +6 item, +5 tome)... although affording a +5 time at level 12 is iffy.


Would I rather have the +1DC, +20 skill points, +1 to int skills, and bonus spells than some marginal boosts to traditional dump stats? Absolutely.
Con and dex are not dump stats for a wizard, they are his secondary and tertiary stats. And make a difference. And it is not a 1 to 1 conversion... it is 1 point of int = 3 points of another stat.

I did however completely forget that int gives you extra skill points... my bad. that is a big one.


I think point buy does a decent job of encouraging people not to focus too obsessively, and while the even number thing is routine...that's a mechanical problem created by only even numbers being generally valuable. That's the root problem there, not point buy.

well... you could always tweak the costs...


Color Spray, Sleep, Glitterdust, Charm Person. How exactly is +1 save DCs an "end game effect"? It's a huge benefit at every level.

the extra 9th level slots are end game effects. I was very clear that the +1 to DC is not and you get to enjoy it right away.

Although, you are comparing +3 on ranged touch attacks vs +1 on DC. the ranged touch attack can be used to hit with some very dangerous spells, some of which don't allow a save.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 03:54 PM
This link (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872146/How_many_points_for_a_true_4d6_stat_generation?num =10&pg=1) that Artanis pointed me to earlier in the thread seems to have taken this phenomenon into account, and still concluded that 29 or 30 point buy is the best simulation of rolled stats.

Looked at it. Nope, he definitely didn't. At least, not in the sense of discovering what an average point buy would equate to.

In particular, he tends to be looking at means, not averages, which does not account for this trend. It's still a useful statistical work, it's just got a subtly different aim. His mean point buy for 4d6b3, rerolling inadequate numbers per the DMG, was 29.935.

Aright, lets look at say, straight 10s. This is a point buy of 6, and is pretty unlikely. The closest probable point buy on the high end of the scale was 75.

Obviously, this skews the average upward from the mean.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 03:54 PM
I was very clear that the +1 to DC is not and you get to enjoy it right away.I really don't think you were all that clear:
and +1 to your spell DC, that you always get... this is a real "end game" benefit... This statement is a bit ambiguous as to what you actually mean; I'm not suprised at all that someone read it as if you were saying it was an end game benefit.


In particular, he tends to be looking at means, not averages, which does not account for this trend. Do you mean median, mode, or midrange? Because as far as I can tell, mean = average. They're both the sum of the values of the data points divided by the number of data points.

Fawsto
2009-12-29, 03:59 PM
I will state the obvious: It is of human nature to seek use the options they can control. So it is, normally, a better option for the average man to use point buy system because it is more "safe". Saying this, it is only natural that most people will find point buy more confortable.

However this is not absolute. As we can see that there are people that find joy at gambling. Rolling 4d6b3 is just another way of gambling without using money. It is, simply put, fun for a lot of people. There are other reasons to roll dice, though.

Of course there are individuals that find the option between rolling the dice o buying the points irrelevant for several reasons.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 04:00 PM
Do you mean median? Because as far as I can tell, mean = average.

Doh, yeah. He was calculating on the most commonly found set.

So, a good system for finding the point buy of the average roll, but due to the math, average point buy is higher than the point buy of the average roll.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:02 PM
I will state the obvious: It is of human nature to seek use the options they can control.I don't agree that this is obvious, or true; I'd say it's just as true that it is human nature to seek out the unknown and uncontrollable, especially for entertainment/games.

jmbrown
2009-12-29, 04:12 PM
The one thing these topics point out to me is the split in play style. You've got the people who look forward to the challenge of playing as a character and the people who look forward to the challenge the DM presents them. The former prefer rolling because the fun is in playing something you wouldn't expect. Dying isn't a major hurdle; it's not like there's a ration on paper and dice in the real world. The latter prefers point buy because every aspect of generation should be controlled. The party should be about even, everyone should be relatively equal in capability (barring spellcasters), and seeing the same character to the end is reward enough.

I can't wave my finger and say "No, your opinion is wrong" but I submit to the school of PCs being expendable and how you should never put all your eggs in one basket (I've seen people write huge 10 page back stories only to have their character die in the first session and they're absolutely crushed). Taking someone you think is weak or worthless and seeing what you can do with them is challenging as it is. Taking even the most unoptimized character to 5th level is a reward in itself.

Jayabalard
2009-12-29, 04:13 PM
So, a good system for finding the point buy of the average roll, but due to the math, average point buy is higher than the point buy of the average roll.I'd think that the most accurate way of comparing would be something like:

Generate all of the possible sets of rolls; there will be repeats when looking a 4d6 drop the lowest set.
Throw out all sets that allow for a re-roll; this part is important, because it definitely skews the results of rolling to be a bit higher.
Determine the point buy of each remaining set of rolls
Take the mean of the point buy numbers from step #3



The one thing these topics point out to me is the split in play style. You've got the people who look forward to the challenge of playing as a character and the people who look forward to the challenge the DM presents them. I don't think that's accurate at all. The difference is that one group starts from an idea and builds a character to portray that idea (point buy), and the other group likes to start from a partially generated character (rolls, or even more in some systems), then come up with the idea, and then build the rest of the character.

jmbrown
2009-12-29, 04:32 PM
I don't think that's accurate at all. The difference is that one group starts from an idea and builds a character to portray that idea (point buy), and the other group likes to start from a partially generated character (rolls, or even more in some systems), then come up with the idea, and then build the rest of the character.

But it ultimately leads to different play styles. In my experience, people who prefer point buy put more work into the initial design of their characters while those that prefer rolling let the actual adventure build them up. I've rarely seen a person who enjoys rolling (especially those who do the hardcore 3d6 for each stat which even I won't touch with a 10' pole) get bummed out over a dead character. Point buy characters are most definitely suited towards long term play. This could be a matter of design where pre-3E adventures, even at level 1, included a monster that killed you in a single hit.

I'm just speaking from experience here. My 2nd edition games had us rolling 3 or 4 characters at once and choosing which one adventures per session because some characters barely lasted a single adventure. I know what to expect when point generating a character. I have to make crap up when rolling and hope for the best.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 04:48 PM
Doh, yeah. He was calculating on the most commonly found set.

No. He mentions the most commonly found set (the "mode"), 15/14/13/12/11/10, but the 29.935-point statistic came from taking a "weighted mean" (average). The tiny possibility of rolling the equivalent of 96-point buy (all 18's) was definitely factored into his work. (It just didn't make a big difference in the weighted average since it's so unlikely to be rolled.)

Notably, he clearly understands the difference since he suggests 16/15/14/12/10/8 -- NOT 15/14/13/12/11/10 -- as a good "standard" array to use in-game. Where he got that from is somewhat arbitrary -- it's much more difficult statistical work to figure out an ability array that matches not only the average center of stat distribution, but also the average spread, and he doesn't seem to have gone that in-depth -- but it's clear he wasn't just picking the "most common result."

Personally I'd actually feel a little more comfortable with his results if he used medians rather than means. (Both the median and the mean are proper versions of the term "average" in statistics, incidentally.) But he certainly didn't neglect the higher point-values of high rolls, like you're saying.


I'd think that the most accurate way of comparing would be something like:

Generate all of the possible sets of rolls; there will be repeats when looking a 4d6 drop the lowest set.
Throw out all sets that allow for a re-roll; this part is important, because it definitely skews the results of rolling to be a bit higher.
Determine the point buy of each remaining set of rolls
Take the mean of the point buy numbers from step #3


Uh, yeah, that's ... exactly what the guy we're arguing about did.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 04:53 PM
I'd think that the most accurate way of comparing would be something like:

Generate all of the possible sets of rolls; there will be repeats when looking a 4d6 drop the lowest set.
Throw out all sets that allow for a re-roll; this part is important, because it definitely skews the results of rolling to be a bit higher.
Determine the point buy of each remaining set of rolls
Take the mean of the point buy numbers from step #3



I would agree with that. I should actually calc them, and post them somewhere I won't lose them(ie, not these forums), and just link to em every time the topic comes up.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 04:57 PM
No. He mentions the most commonly found set (the "mode"), 15/14/13/12/11/10, but the 29.935-point statistic came from taking a "weighted mean" (average). The tiny possibility of rolling the equivalent of 96-point buy (all 18's) was definitely factored into his work. (It just didn't make a big difference in the weighted average since it's so unlikely to be rolled.)

Average roll. Not average point buy.



Uh, yeah, that's ... exactly what the guy we're arguing about did.

Not really. He answered the question of "What point buy is equivalent to an average roll on 4d6b3". He did so in a valid way, and it's an interesting question. However, it is different from the question of "What is the average point buy resulting from 4d6b3", which I contend is more relevant for purposes of comparing roll and point buy.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-29, 05:10 PM
But it ultimately leads to different play styles. In my experience, people who prefer point buy put more work into the initial design of their characters while those that prefer rolling let the actual adventure build them up. I've rarely seen a person who enjoys rolling (especially those who do the hardcore 3d6 for each stat which even I won't touch with a 10' pole) get bummed out over a dead character. Point buy characters are most definitely suited towards long term play. This could be a matter of design where pre-3E adventures, even at level 1, included a monster that killed you in a single hit.

However, I'm something of the opposite of this. We've been doing PB for a few years, now, in my D&D group, and I have no problem with a character dying. I'll simply come up with another one. The adventure does build my characters up... either I come up with details that enhance them, the DM does, or the character spontaneously creates them.

But, I grew up on rolling. Characters die. It happens. You move on. I may have unfinished goals with the characters but... hey, it happens. (http://www.superstupor.com/sust05192008.shtml)

Draz74
2009-12-29, 05:19 PM
Not really. He answered the question of "What point buy is equivalent to an average roll on 4d6b3". He did so in a valid way, and it's an interesting question. However, it is different from the question of "What is the average point buy resulting from 4d6b3", which I contend is more relevant for purposes of comparing roll and point buy.

I fail to see that there is any difference between those two questions beyond simple word order. This is like the difference between "what kind of cheese would you like on your sandwich?" and "Looking at this sandwich, what variety of cheese would add most to its taste-value in your opinion?"

Semantics of "what question he was trying to answer" aside, this:



Generate all of the possible sets of rolls; there will be repeats when looking a 4d6 drop the lowest set.
Throw out all sets that allow for a re-roll; this part is important, because it definitely skews the results of rolling to be a bit higher.
Determine the point buy of each remaining set of rolls
Take the mean of the point buy numbers from step #3


... is the exact process the guy describes having used.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 05:24 PM
I fail to see that there is any difference between those two questions beyond simple word order. This is like the difference between "what kind of cheese would you like on your sandwich?" and "Looking at this sandwich, what variety of cheese would add most to its taste-value in your opinion?"

Because the questions are inherently different, and furthermore, have different answers. Point buy does not scale proportionately to roll, so the point buy of the average roll need not equal the average point buy overall. In this case, it's guaranteed not to.


Semantics of "what question he was trying to answer" aside, this:

... is the exact process the guy describes having used.

No. 1 and 2 are the same, yes.
3. He determines the average set of rolled stats.
4. He calculates the point buy of that roll.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 05:34 PM
No. 1 and 2 are the same, yes.
3. He determines the average set of rolled stats.
4. He calculates the point buy of that roll.


I then calculated the weighted mean of the set costs, weighted with the probability of the concerning sets.

He does "determine the average set of rolled stats," as you say, but he does so as an afterthought, independent of the 29.935-point statistic, and he admits that doing so was rather more subjective than the rest of the analysis.

If he did steps 3 and 4 as you're suggesting, then he obviously would have arrived at a conclusion that was an integer value, rather than 29.935, since no individual array of ability scores can have a non-integer point value.

But you know what? I'm through arguing about this now. If you want to repeat the work that he's done (and reach the exact same conclusion, assuming no mistakes in either work), who am I to stop you?

Artanis
2009-12-29, 05:35 PM
*reads*

*re-reads*

I'm pretty sure the guy I linked to did exactly what Jayabalard described.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:05 PM
Aright, lets look at a single roll for 4d6b3.

3 - Requires all four dice come up ones. 1 in 1,296 shot. Most likely to be irrelevant because getting a minimal roll increases odds of overall die set being tossed out.
4 - 4 in 1,296
5 - 10 in 1,296
6 - 21
7 - 38
8 - 62
9 - 91
10 - 122
11 - 148
12 - 167
13 - 172
14 - 160
15 - 131
16 - 94
17 - 54
18 - 21

Alright, we can already see that the median score is approximately 13. I didn't bother to calculate the average, but due to the bell distribution, it will clearly be quite close to the median.

So, if you rolled dead average every time, and got straight 13s, you'd get a 30pt buy. Now, we haven't yet accounted for variation, and more importantly, for rolls that we'll toss out for being too low. Both of these are going to skew us significantly upward. However, this is a bit interesting from the standpoint of many people viewing stats of 10 as average, which is definitely not the case....even in 3d6, unless you ignore the rules for throwing out exceptionally bad spreads.

More math coming, as I calculate out the odds of point buys.

Throwaway conditions:
No stat higher than 13.
If total modifiers are +0 or less.

Draz74
2009-12-29, 06:12 PM
So, if you rolled dead average every time, and got straight 13s, you'd get a 25pt buy.
:smallconfused: How are straight 13's 25-point buy? A 13 costs 5 points. D&D has 6 ability scores. 6*5 = 30.

I think there was another comment earlier in this thread, something about straight 10's, that similarly confused me. What am I missing?


However, this is a bit interesting from the standpoint of many people viewing stats of 10 as average, which is definitely not the case....even in 3d6, unless you ignore the rules for throwing out exceptionally bad spreads.

Nobody (er, well, nobody informed) ever stated that 10's were "average" for PCs. Just for the population of the fantasy setting in general. And NPCs have no such rule about throwing out bad spreads, so 3d6 is feasibly compatible with the "10 is average" principle.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:16 PM
Numbers goof, fixed it.

I've certainly heard the 10 is average theme many a time in the past...and while yes, average should include all the various commoners, and that poor bugger who rolled all 3s isn't likely to go adventuring...or even live long, I think some people have the idea that PCs are more or less average, while others embrace the idea that PCs are vastly above average. Mechanically, the latter seems to be more supported by 3.5, but eh, you know people and their preferences.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-29, 06:22 PM
All possible pointbuys.

1,296^6(4738381338321616896) total results.

96 pb: All 18s. Odds:

1 pb: Odds:

All lower get rerolled.


**Reserved for more maths**

Xzeno
2009-12-29, 06:54 PM
What my group(s) tend to do is roll 4d6, removing the lowest die. Then, We haggle with the DM (that's usually me) until everyone has roughly fair (if artificially high) stats. It works for us.

nepphi
2010-01-01, 05:51 PM
Points-buy, and most frequently I impose the standard spread as well. Players have to talk me into letting them use points-buy outright because I want CC to be fast, all together so ideas can be discussed and played out (I like a party that is supportive of one another), and letting them sit around spending points takes too bloody long. IF they make a good case for wanting a different spread than standard (usually based on IC/background reasons), I let them choose one of the sample spreads in the book.

(the above refers to 4e, which is my favorite edition. Similar for 3e though).

1 - Party Balance. Everyone has the same options available, no one usually starts with any 18s. This allows for equal parts specialization and challenge, reducing the chance of one person overshadowing another.

2 - No fudging, no wheedling. Any 18s are got fair and square, not when my eyes happen to glance away for a moment to check a feat description. Also, any comments about 'but can't I...' are met with 'no, and neither can anyone else.' This thankfully isn't as common as it used to be, but even just recently I had a fellow whining about it and then he couldn't do the BASIC MATH required for custom points buy, so I just imposed an array chosen at random on him. I dislike having my time wasted.

3 - There is no 3.

4 - Flexibility. In those occasions I allow CharGen away from the table (such as if I'm running a oneshot or we're going to have limited time during our first session), my workload is reduced. I don't have to find a way to observe the rolls people are making because everyone's got the same spread to work with, and they can build their whole character to their heart's content while it is incredibly easy for me to check their math at go-time to see if any deviations arise.

5 - Game Balance. Ostensibly, the points-buy options and the standard spread are what the game as a whole is balanced toward. Allowing the potential wild deviations upward or downward that rolling can lead to makes it harder to tailor my game to the party. I want to get playing, not spend hours rewriting because I forgot LoGro managed to end up with a -2 in everything but his primaries (an exaggeration, I assure you).

6 - Compatibility. I like the RPGA and tournament games. I want my players to, if they so desire, have the ability to take a character (and backstory) from my games to such an event if they want.

Lastly, I do make sure to reward good ideas. I frequently reward extra feats or ability scores (making sure to note the extras so they can be removed for RPGA events) for choosing a great theme song, or roleplaying particularly well.

A lot of my reasoning sounds rather harsh, I'm aware. It comes from having to deal with a rash of latent powergamers, minmaxers, and outright cheaters in my core group. I kid you not, we have a guy who keep a die on the 20, wait til the DM is checking someone else's rolls, roll a second die then push the 20-die toward the DM and declare his nat-20 in a proud voice. This attitude extends toward making characters that have 22 str at level 1 in 3/3.5 games.

A lot of this has toned down in recent months, but that comes from having imposed a very firm hand on the group so that people aren't being taken advantage of or left out by the cheating element. Also helps in that those who aren't superlative min-maxers don't get knocked aside by those who are.

That's my two bits, any road.