PDA

View Full Version : Point-Buy Problems



Enix18
2010-06-06, 09:33 PM
So, I'm starting up a West Marches style campaign, and already my players are whining about me making them use 28-point-buy to generate attributes and "making their characters weak". Normally, I would be fine with them just rolling dice of ability scores, but I'm well aware that my players cheat quite a bit when use this method. Usually I let it slide (as I tend to run fairly action-packed campaigns anyway, so they could use the high scores), but I don't think anyone should be getting unfair advantages in this campaign...

Therefore, I would like to ask your opinions. What do you folks think of the point-buy system? Do you have any better ways to generate attributes?

Keld Denar
2010-06-06, 09:40 PM
I personally love the PB system. It puts all of the PCs on an even footing, ability wise. Otherwise, if you have one person roll REALLY well, and one person roll below average, there might be some resentment between players.

If you want a higher power game, just use a higher PB. 32 is a pretty common next step, and 35 would be another step above that.

EDIT: And if your players are actually cheating, you have bigger problems than you realize. Squash that behavior asap.

PersonMan
2010-06-06, 09:42 PM
You could roll them an array, or have them all roll in front of you.

PId6
2010-06-06, 09:43 PM
I like point buy, since it's mostly a fair way of generating ability scores. I usually prefer somewhere around 32 to 36, since that helps martial characters a lot, but 28 is doable. Rolling just tend to make it harder to play the character you want, and can be incredibly unfair if one person rolls no greater than 14 while the other guy gets all 16+. Cheating just makes it worse.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 09:43 PM
Does it count as cheating if you reroll full sets (as in, all 30 rolls, not just the 5 you're not satisfied with) until you get a set that you find acceptable?

(Admittedly yes, you could just keep rolling until you get Yahtzee, but I find it too tedious to bother.)

PId6
2010-06-06, 09:47 PM
Does it count as cheating if you reroll full sets (as in, all 30 rolls, not just the 5 you're not satisfied with) until you get a set that you find acceptable?
Yes, except under the conditions specifically stated in which you can reroll (total modifiers under something-or-another, I forget).

Terazul
2010-06-06, 09:47 PM
Yeah, our group tends to favor point-buy over rolling more these days, for the reasons stated above. Equal footing, plus everyone gets a better say of what score they have where, and if you want a higher level game just hand out more points.

What really got us using it more often was the E6 LA rules, that alot of us seem to like (even when we're not in E6); LA reduced to 0, but reduced PB based on the original LA in question. Works alright for having everyone at the same level, without an LA race having much higher stats than non LA ones (though racial abilities are unchanged).

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 09:51 PM
Yes, except under the conditions specifically stated in which you can reroll (total modifiers under something-or-another, I forget).

Hm... maybe I should start using that 8 + 1d6 houserule I came up with a while back...

Il_Vec
2010-06-06, 09:57 PM
Hm... maybe I should start using that 8 + 1d6 houserule I came up with a while back...

That seems kinda low-powered, is it the intent?

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 09:59 PM
That seems kinda low-powered, is it the intent?

Aye. I also have an ability score cap of (20 + Racial Modifier).

Kylarra
2010-06-06, 10:05 PM
Point buy systems are my usual favorites for campaigns I expect to last a while. If the power level isn't to your players' tastes, then just up the number of points.

lothos
2010-06-06, 10:07 PM
I tend to agree with Keld Denar on both points.

Simply raise the number of points available until you as DM are happy that the opportunities for everyone to enjoy themselves are maximised. This means you need to strike a balance between the payers feeling their characters are too weak to make them special versus the lack of challenge that results if everyone has all their stats at 16+ at 1st level.

I used to DM a 1st Edition AD&D game about 20 years ago. All the players and I were in our teens. When we started people initially didn't cheat.... for the first game. Everyone rolled their stats with 4d6, discard the lowest. But by the 3rd or 4th character "inflation" had set in whereby people started cheating a bit at first, but eventually after about a year a guy turned up claiming he had rolled up a character with five 18s and one 17 using 4d6, discard the lowest.

I pointed out to him that the probability of rolling such a character was millions to one against. In fact I was wrong, it's 1 in 9,207,950,807 (calculated just now in Excel). So that's 1 in 9 billion. In other words if you kept rolling 1 character EVERY MINUTE, you would on average expect a character like that once every 17,507 years......

We then agreed that everyone could only roll stats in front of all the other players and the DM from that point on. Same for hit points. The point is that once someone cheats a bit, other people tend to cheat a bit more. Most D&D players tend to be at least a bit competitive, even those who love role-playing and don't spend too much time worrying about game mechanics and build optimisation.

If you let someone cheat a bit, then someone else will feel pressure to cheat a bit more....... if that's the kind of game you want, then OK. But the game can be at least as much fun (I say more), if everyone plays by agreed rules and no-one "has" to cheat. If you and your players decide that means a 96 point buy (everyone has all 18s) then that's OK.... because everyone agrees on it. Perhaps you could run a campaign where everyone is half-deity :-) Smart Players will realise this just means you will raise the CR of encounters a little... I guess it depends on the story you are trying to tell here....

1st Edition never had a points buy system. I wish it had. It strikes me as a much fairer system and more than that, it eliminates any way to cheat. More than that, it avoids the unpleasant consequence of suggesting that everyone is out to cheat, which our "you must roll in front of everyone else" rule did.

Hope that's helpful. Just my perspective.


EDIT - Wow a lot of posts. 10 posts while I was writing that reply !


Does it count as cheating if you reroll full sets (as in, all 30 rolls, not just the 5 you're not satisfied with) until you get a set that you find acceptable?

(Admittedly yes, you could just keep rolling until you get Yahtzee, but I find it too tedious to bother.)


Back in that same 1st edition game, one player (the same guy who claimed to have rolle five*18, 17) rolled up an interesting character once. I can't remember exactly but it had an 18, a couple of other very good stats, two average and a 5.

He went mad about the 5, insisting he be allowed to re-roll it. Well, with the perspective of 3.5 rules, I'd probably have allowed 4d6, discard the lowest with a floating re-roll. But we had all agreed on how we would generate characters, so I stood firm and said no. I actually thought it would be a great character with some interesting roll-play opportunities and enough power to still have a lot of fun.

He then said "right, my character slits it's own throat".....

Well, I let him do that and start rolling all 6 stats again, a fresh character.
It got me thinking.... he could in theory keep doing this forever... though the other players would have eventually put peer pressure on him to stop.

We already had a house rule that if your character died and was not raised, you could make up a new character with 3/4 the XP of the old one We had only ever used it when a character above 1st level died.

So from that point on I changed the rule to say "Your next character will have 3/4 the XP of the old one, OR 500XP less, whichever is lower. (bear in mind, XP totals to advance a level were different in 1st edition and varied by class).

So if anyone else slit their throat, they would start with -500XP and have to make that up before they started earning XP towards becoming 2nd level. Cumulative "I slit my own throat" would mean more penalty.

Never had anyone else slit their own throat....

Eloi
2010-06-06, 10:09 PM
I usually have a 38 point buy, because it seems like it gives players at least two good ablitiy scores, three okay-ish ability scores, and one dump stat.

lsfreak
2010-06-06, 10:10 PM
I prefer point buys as well, just keep in mind that lower point buys favor already-powerful classes, except in underoptimized groups. More points makes for more powerful characters, but also at least alleviates or delays class imbalances.

PId6
2010-06-06, 10:12 PM
It strikes me as a much fairer system and more than that, it eliminates any way to cheat.
Not quite true; it's easier to tell if someone's cheating, but that can occasionally require a bit of calculation, especially if racial/level/item/tome bonuses are involved. It's still possible to cheat if the DM's lazy/trusting though.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-06, 10:12 PM
My primary reason for liking point buy is it helps with balancing NPC's vs PC's
If the PC's have 32 points then major antagonists would also use 32 point buy.
Be they major NPC's or the BBEG's. While lesser foes and mooks may use 28 or 25 point buy. With rolling its not quite so simple in determining NPC"s stats. In a manner of fairness.

lothos
2010-06-06, 10:18 PM
Not quite true; it's easier to tell if someone's cheating, but that can occasionally require a bit of calculation, especially if racial/level/item/tome bonuses are involved. It's still possible to cheat if the DM's lazy/trusting though.

Fair point.... With my players, I was NEVER trusting.... well, hardly ever :-)

valadil
2010-06-06, 10:19 PM
Point buy takes some getting used to. We started high and slowly drew it back to more reasonable levels. Maybe you should start with 32-36?

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 10:47 PM
I prefer to offer two stat arrays, with everyone choosing which suits them best.

You have 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 for the SAD classes.

And 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10 for the MAD classes.

It seems to work well.

Xuc Xac
2010-06-06, 10:58 PM
For a system so obsessed with the appearance of "balance", it seems incredibly stupid to start the whole process with a set of random dice rolls. In my opinion, if you don't use a point buy system, then you have no right to complain about "balance".

Personally, I like using a fixed array for all the PCs because it prevents characters being perfectly suited for their classes. It breaks my suspension of disbelief that every single fighter is a super-strong moron and every wizard is an anti-social genius. Plus, it gets really boring after you've seen it hundreds of times. In a world with reasonable verisimilitude, there would be fighters with Strength 13 and Intelligence or Wisdom 18 who became fighters because they didn't have the access to the necessary education to become spellcasters. There could be wizards with Strength 16 and Intelligence 12 who became wizards because they come from upperclass families that insisted that they do something cerebral and not get their hands dirty or put their lives in danger as a soldier even though they enjoyed physical activity more than reading.

The fact that the D&D rules assume that you'll min-max really irritates me. They should have just said "Fighters get a +4 bonus to Strength" or "Wizards get a +4 bonus to Intelligence" as part of the class rules, instead of designing the rules with the assumption that everyone would arrange their stats that way and anyone who doesn't gets screwed. If those classes really need to have those stats, why don't they have them as a default?

Kylarra
2010-06-06, 11:02 PM
D&D 3.X is not obsessed with balance. [Some] [P]layers are obsessed with balance.

4e does have balance as a design goal and does use pointbuy as the standard stat generation method.

PId6
2010-06-06, 11:03 PM
Personally, I like using a fixed array for all the PCs because it prevents characters being perfectly suited for their classes. It breaks my suspension of disbelief that every single fighter is a super-strong moron and every wizard is an anti-social genius. Plus, it gets really boring after you've seen it hundreds of times. In a world with reasonable verisimilitude, there would be fighters with Strength 13 and Intelligence or Wisdom 18 who became fighters because they didn't have the access to the necessary education to become spellcasters. There could be wizards with Strength 16 and Intelligence 12 who became wizards because they come from upperclass families that insisted that they do something cerebral and not get their hands dirty or put their lives in danger as a soldier even though they enjoyed physical activity more than reading.
Thing is, PCs are assumed to be adventurers who are at least competent. There may be plenty of fighters better suited for monasteries out in the world, but they not going to survive long as adventurers and they're not really PC material. It may be more realistic to have stats not fitting your class, but it's also less fun; who'd want to be a wizard that can't cast spells?

Eloi
2010-06-06, 11:03 PM
D&D 3.X is not obsessed with balance. [Some] [P]layers are obsessive with balance.

4e does have balance as a design goal and does use pointbuy as the baseline.

I'd play more 4e if I didn't grow up with 3e as a kid. Play what you know, you know?

lothos
2010-06-06, 11:04 PM
For a system so obsessed with the appearance of "balance", it seems incredibly stupid to start the whole process with a set of random dice rolls. In my opinion, if you don't use a point buy system, then you have no right to complain about "balance".

Personally, I like using a fixed array for all the PCs because it prevents characters being perfectly suited for their classes. It breaks my suspension of disbelief that every single fighter is a super-strong moron and every wizard is an anti-social genius. Plus, it gets really boring after you've seen it hundreds of times. In a world with reasonable verisimilitude, there would be fighters with Strength 13 and Intelligence or Wisdom 18 who became fighters because they didn't have the access to the necessary education to become spellcasters. There could be wizards with Strength 16 and Intelligence 12 who became wizards because they come from upperclass families that insisted that they do something cerebral and not get their hands dirty or put their lives in danger as a soldier even though they enjoyed physical activity more than reading.

The fact that the D&D rules assume that you'll min-max really irritates me. They should have just said "Fighters get a +4 bonus to Strength" or "Wizards get a +4 bonus to Intelligence" as part of the class rules, instead of designing the rules with the assumption that everyone would arrange their stats that way and anyone who doesn't gets screwed. If those classes really need to have those stats, why don't they have them as a default?

Interesting idea, but I think the problem is that if you have multi-classing then you have to define carefully what it means to have "Fighters get a +4 bonus to Strength". Does that only apply to the starting class at 1st Level ? if not, I can see a lot of people doing a lot of 1 level dips :-)

There is the option of "organic Characters" from DM's guide in the 3.5 rules. It roughly says that you roll 4d6 (discard lowest) 6 times in a specific order. Then you reroll any 1 score, then switch any two scores. It gives the player the ability to build a character that's reasonable for what class they have in mind to play, but doesn't let them arrange everything the way they want...

Though this does have something going for it, I personally still prefer the idea of point buy....

Curmudgeon
2010-06-06, 11:04 PM
my players are whining about me making them use 28-point-buy to generate attributes and "making their characters weak".
Point buy is more fair than rolling, so don't change that. However, if you change to 32 point buy you'll accomplish 3 things:

You'll appease your players because you're making their characters stronger.
You'll allow for more character diversity. Lower PB scores encourage players to pick SAD (generally spellcaster) classes.
You'll make yourself a bit more work, scaling everything up in power to compensate for stronger characters.
I hope you're also limiting them to (average + ˝) on each hit die. No dice should be used for character generation.

Kylarra
2010-06-06, 11:06 PM
I'd play more 4e if I didn't grow up with 3e as a kid. Play what you know, you know?Fair enough. I wasn't advocating 4e over 3.X in that post though. I was simply pointing out that "balance" was not something taken [strongly] into consideration when designing 3.X as a response to Xuc Xac.

PId6
2010-06-06, 11:08 PM
I hope you're also limiting them to (average + ˝) on each hit die. No dice should be used for character generation.
Forgot about this, but yeah, +1 here as well. I'd usually do 1/2 max + 1 rather than purely average, since there's no decimals involved and the difference is quite small, but the idea is the same.

Edit: Never mind, scratch that. Didn't read carefully; that's the exact same method. That's what I get for posting so late at night. :smalltongue:

drengnikrafe
2010-06-06, 11:10 PM
There was a time I advocated point buy so strongly that I tried to keep rolling for stats out of a developing system. Ultimately, though, I have grown to love rolling more than point buy. I find it can produce significantly less planned characters. I also find it can make decisions for you. I have, on at least one occasion, not known what I wanted to play, rolled some stats in order, and made up my mind based on what I got.

I will say that point buy does tend to have a higher level of balance, but it also feels a little more forced. Rolling tends towards an average, point buy enforces it.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-06, 11:11 PM
... I can't say that I'm a huge fan of that mentality. I mean, a "realistic" system would not have classes or levels to begin with. However, since levels are needed to help maintain balance and classes provide structure, I don't see how playing the numbers to improve one's odds to meaningfully contribute to the game is really much of a big deal.

I doubt that anyone would care to read the story of an inept group of misfits attempting to x the y, so why the heck would they want to pretend to be them?

Eloi
2010-06-06, 11:15 PM
Ah, but the aim is semi-realism, and a Ragtag Bunch of Misfits is a common trope in literature and game tables, so you'd be surprised.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-06, 11:28 PM
Semi-realism: I'm sure that was the rough intent, however ineptly it has been executed. However, I still feel that such a thing would be less 4th wall shattering without the severely limited "character classes".

RtBoM: Oh yes, the ragtag part is still gold. However, the inept part is where it all falls apart.

Eloi
2010-06-06, 11:47 PM
Semi-realism: I'm sure that was the rough intent, however ineptly it has been executed. However, I still feel that such a thing would be less 4th wall shattering without the severely limited "character classes".

RtBoM: Oh yes, the ragtag part is still gold. However, the inept part is where it all falls apart.

True, the Misfits have to be more skilled or the NPCs should have everything done by now. Which is why I have a high skill point buy.

Safety Sword
2010-06-06, 11:53 PM
Does it count as cheating if you reroll full sets (as in, all 30 rolls, not just the 5 you're not satisfied with) until you get a set that you find acceptable?

(Admittedly yes, you could just keep rolling until you get Yahtzee, but I find it too tedious to bother.)

This is the method we use in our campaigns. Usually end with slightly higher powered PCs, but I'm not scared of them :smallamused:

Xuc Xac
2010-06-06, 11:55 PM
Why do they have to be inept? I think it's poor system design that makes the players answer "Are you awesome or not?" Being awesome should be a given. Character generation should ask "How are you awesome?" and not "How awesome are you?" There really shouldn't be suboptimal choices. No one wants to play an incompetent character, so why is sucking even an option? You shouldn't have to play a limited number of specific "builds" to be optimal.

If you're going to have a game where power is balanced and defined by levels, then they should all be equally balanced. It shouldn't be possible to make two characters of equal level that aren't equally effective. They shouldn't be identical but being different shouldn't have an effect on their power level. If your character is X level, then there shouldn't be any suboptimal choices that will drag your effectiveness down to X-1 or X-2 and there shouldn't be any exploits that allow you to squeeze X+1 levels of effectiveness out of your "build".

In my ideal system, a Fighter with a Strength of 18 would succeed by fighting with brute force and a Fighter with an Intelligence of 18 would succeed by fighting with brilliant strategy but they would both succeed as much as their level would allow.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-07, 12:00 AM
I hate rolling for character generation. I want to play the character that I want to play, not the character that the dice dictate for me. I also hate the disparities. I once was playing as a Warrior-Poet//Bard (W-P is a homebrew Tome of Battle class; it's interesting but gets very few maneuvers) with a rolled 26-point-buy-equivalent (with several odd numbers) in the same game as a Wizard//Archivist with a rolled 49-point-buy-equivalent. Something about that just deeply bothered me.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-07, 01:40 AM
I hate rolling for character generation. I want to play the character that I want to play, not the character that the dice dictate for me.
About the only thing that's good about rolling is that it'll provide more diversity than using a standard array. Standard arrays are the death knell of creativity, because once you figure out your most effective use of those number sets you're going to come back to that identical character again and again. (It's not that there aren't other options possible, just that other options won't work as well given the way you want to play.)

Standard arrays are fair, but stifle creativity because they're inflexible. Rolling allows for creativity, but isn't fair. Point buy is both fair and flexible.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-07, 01:43 AM
OK, I agree with you there: Standard arrays are as bad, if not worse, than rolling. I definitely prefer point-buy over all else.

sofawall
2010-06-07, 01:55 AM
An approach I like is everyone rolls 4d6b3, and everyone gets to choose the array they like best.

Ormur
2010-06-07, 02:11 AM
I'm a bit fond of rolling with a more generous interpretation of what scores are acceptable than in the books. My longest played character has stats no one would pick in point buy, mostly because they all have a positive modifier but the highest was just 16. So he's wiser, stronger and more charismatic than most optimised wizards would be. I've also rolled with some crazy lax rules that gave most players double 18's. I can see why people would prefer point buy though, I use it for NPC's to maintain fairness (although the points differ :smalltongue:).

2xMachina
2010-06-07, 02:17 AM
I hate randomness because it might be possible to get straight 18's and straight 3's.

If they end up in the same gaming group... poof.

Also: kill the char repeatedly until you roll what you want.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-07, 02:19 AM
*Snip*

Then don't play D&D because you aren't going to get that. In fact, I can't think of any system where you'd get that besides LARP. (Also, 3.5 doesn't obsess about Balance. At all) Your perfect system from what I can tell is "flip a coin. If it comes up what you called it as you win"

Also, Verisimilitude in D&D is fine. Realism does not work. If you want to be realistic then taking damage will reduce a character's effectiveness, Most sword hits will be SODs, Arcane magic won't exist at all and neither will Dragons, Magical beasts, Outsiders, Constructs, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Oozes, plants, Monstrous humanoids or undead. It also won't take Vorpal to lop off a creature's head. A normal sword will accomplish that just fine with a called shot. Also, almost all humans will have 10s in their stats and almost nobody will get an 18 in any of them without sacrificing others.

You'll also get the exact same problem you brought up with a fixed array. Unless by fixed array you mean Arbitrary stats decided by the DM for Suspension of disbelief.

So, what you have left is humanoid, Vermin, animal and homebrew Aberrations and an entirely different system with entirely different assumptions than that of which D&D operates under.

A certain degree of realism is fine. But when players are forced to play mages that can never cast anything better than second level spell or fighters that have a penalty to hit you're doing something wrong.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-07, 02:19 AM
Point buy has it's problems, but it's better then most rolling methods in my opinion. Point buy allows you to play what you want, not what you rolled, though I can see the serendipity of the latter, I guess.

Fizban
2010-06-07, 02:19 AM
Something I think is funny is that the default point buy is 25, yet the most common one I see is 32. I'm pretty sure someone calculated the actual average to be a little more than 25, but when people complain that 25 is underpowered you know that they've never actually rolled a character straight. The elite array (which is also just about the best arrangement of 25 points), is enough to build any character (not any crazy op fu character, but any basic character), and is actually pretty good compared to a poor roll.

PId6
2010-06-07, 02:32 AM
Something I think is funny is that the default point buy is 25, yet the most common one I see is 32. I'm pretty sure someone calculated the actual average to be a little more than 25, but when people complain that 25 is underpowered you know that they've never actually rolled a character straight. The elite array (which is also just about the best arrangement of 25 points), is enough to build any character (not any crazy op fu character, but any basic character), and is actually pretty good compared to a poor roll.
Depends on how you define a "basic character", I suppose, but I defy you to build a good monk, paladin, or trip-based fighter that doesn't have to make horrendous sacrifices to the build and still function. A monk with say 15 Str for to hit/damage, 14 Con for hp, 13 Dex for AC/Reflex, 12 Wis for AC/Will, 10 Int, and 8 Cha, has 12 AC and not enough skill points. A tripper with 15 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha has not enough AoOs and crappy will saves.

Elite Array is just not enough for most characters, especially if you want to get creative and care about social skills on your monk or perception skills on your tripper.

sofawall
2010-06-07, 02:37 AM
I'm pretty sure someone calculated the actual average to be a little more than 25,

Actually, when you remove arrays that the PHB considers "too low", the average PB for 4d6b3 is about 30.3 points.

Fizban
2010-06-07, 02:40 AM
In both cases they put their second highest stat in constitution. If you focus on hit points then why would you have more AoOs? Putting a 12 in constitution isn't going to kill you, and if you need the 14 in dex for AoOs then you should put it in dex, and fighters aren't supposed to have good will saves so I don't see how that is an issue. The monk put all his stats in damage in hit points, so why would he expect to have lots of skillpoints?

In both cases you're assuming that the character is entitled to more than they are. Just because you want high damage and hp and AoOs and skill points doesn't mean that's what the system requires. A normal powered character has two or maybe three of those with some magic, and a character that has all of them is the one that's overpowered.

Edit: ah, thank you for the numbers on that one. Still, I'd much rather have the elite array than roll 18 10 10 10 6 6, or 14 10 10 10 10 6, both of which I'm pretty sure don't allow rerolls by default. Having one high stat, a bunch of bland, and one crippling stat is neither powerful nor fun in my opinion, and I've rolled plenty before.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-07, 02:42 AM
I have gotten some interesting characters out of rolled stats (including a wizard whose only double digit scores were in Dex and Int, with a whopping 5 Charisma, after a +1 from aging; level 5 and 9 hp before False Life was factored in :smallcool:). On the other hand, point buy is much fairer, and it also avoids the long delay at the table as people wait for the lucky sets of d6s to become available (we had two sets: one which always rolled a mix of very high and very low stats, and one that rolled really well for new players and me and terribly for anyone else). Overall, I like point buy because it allows me to generate a character and work on them over a longer period of time before the game, giving me a chance to tweak my build choices as I go (and tweak my stats to fit the changes to my character) without requiring observed rolls or anything like that.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-07, 02:47 AM
I should also say, I enjoy Point buy but prefer high point buy. Most of the characters I play are this one Specific Paladin who still kind of Suffers from MAD. (Still Needs STR, CON, CHA, REALLY needs CHA, INT, and WIS if you want any kind of spellcasting)

PId6
2010-06-07, 02:59 AM
In both cases they put their second highest stat in constitution. If you focus on hit points then why would you have more AoOs? Putting a 12 in constitution isn't going to kill you, and if you need the 14 in dex for AoOs then you should put it in dex, and fighters aren't supposed to have good will saves so I don't see how that is an issue. The monk put all his stats in damage in hit points, so why would he expect to have lots of skillpoints?
Because that's what the game expects of the class? Fighter and monk are melee classes, so they need at least a decent Con to survive. 12 Con is likely to kill you when you're constantly getting beat on by enemies as part of your job. And it's precisely because fighters have bad will progression that they need good Wisdom to make up for it. A failed Fort save may kill you, but a failed Will save can kill the entire party.

Classes like fighter, monk, and paladin need good stats in multiple attribute scores to function. A caster may be able to pop the 15 in their casting stat, the 14 in Con, and then go to town, but martial characters cannot do anything of the sort and still contribute.

Let me give you an example: recently, I built a character after rolling pretty badly, on 5d6b3 no less. Most of the other players got 18s and 14+, but I had a 16, a 14, and everything else around 10. And you know what? I was fine, because I was playing a druid. 16 Wis, 14 Con (upped to 16 from dwarf), and I had no problems. I didn't need Str or Dex, because I have an animal companion to fight for me and I would be able to Wild Shape later. I didn't need Int because spells can replace skills quite easily. I didn't need Cha because I'm not playing a social character. With two decent scores, I was perfectly fine, because I was a druid.

Now, if I were playing a martial character instead, I would be utterly screwed. Should I sacrifice my fighting ability in order to stay alive? Should I sacrifice my defenses for more skills so as not to be useless outside of combat? Should I give up my hit points and risk death in order to do more damage? Certain builds with stat requirements, like tripper, are just impossible, while even "doable" classes (rogue) would still be quite weak.

Low point buy systems and Elite Array simply help classes like druid, which are already powerful and don't need many stats to do well, and hurt martial classes which are already weak and need several stats to function. Does that seem fair to you?


In both cases you're assuming that the character is entitled to more than they are. Just because you want high damage and hp and AoOs and skill points doesn't mean that's what the system requires. A normal powered character has two or maybe three of those with some magic, and a character that has all of them is the one that's overpowered.
I'd like to think that most characters are entitled to survival; is that too much to ask? And where are you getting high damage from? 15 Str != high damage by any stretch of the imagination, and 14 Con is certainly not high HP. They're enough to get by, but any lower and you're going to be pretty bad at your job.

If you want overpowered, look at any class with spellcasting up to 9th level. Spellcasting makes up for damage, HP, skills, and whatever else quite easily. I'd suggest you look there before accusing any martial character that wants more than 12 Con as overpowered.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-07, 03:40 AM
RtBoM: Oh yes, the ragtag part is still gold. However, the inept part is where it all falls apart.

Ladies and Gentlemen. Rincewind, one of the most popular characters of a nationally best selling series that rivals Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy in fans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincewind)

Come to think of it. Arthur Dent too.

Neither of those two characters is competent in the slightest. They are both bumbling idiots. Sure. Rincewind has his moments and has a little bit of talent for diplomacy, but for the most part, he gets through on a superior skill of running away and pure luck.

Arthur Dent is even worse. He's kinda an idiot. He's literally non-special, but he's still a beloved character.

A character's relative skill does not indicate a character's relative narrative power. Furthermore, not everyone wants to be the big guy on the block when role-playing. Some people actually ENJOY playing challenging and disadvantaged characters.

Also, while I TYPICALLY don't advocate point buy, I don't see how you're coming across the idea that it makes inept characters. I've made characters that were incredibly successful from rolling that had a highest stat of 15 and an overall cumulative stat modifier of +2. In that same campaign, one of our most incompetent characters had no stat LOWER than a 14 (yes, we saw him roll it). There's always the chance of the literal disaster roll, but a good GM really should allow a player to reroll around it for extreme cases, and honestly, allowing a player to reroll until they're happy as long as they discard the old set really isn't a bad thing unless your players are so obsessed with good stats that they'll reroll 100+ times.

Point is. Ability scores are kinda overrated at times. It's what you do with what you have, not what you have, that counts.

Another_Poet
2010-06-07, 03:48 AM
I played in a very lengthy West Marches style 3.5 game and we used 28 point buy. It was brutal. In general you can expect a higher mortality rate in a West Marches game than a normal game because the players can and will wander into areas above their EL, and there is not necessarily any warning, and they can't say it's unfair. It's part of what makes it a West Marches game.

Many of us in that game felt that we had a hard time staying alive and that our characters were stretched very thin. I personally was recklessly, suicidally brave so I can't complain much, but in general it was very rough on everyone.

I would urge you to consider a higher point buy in light of the high danger level of a frontier style game. 28 point buy is not week but you need more than "not weak" for WM style. Give them 32 points at least.

Fizban
2010-06-07, 03:51 AM
Part of character creation is choosing between the tradeoffs that you're saying everyone should all have. You're in an adventuring party because you can't do everything yourself: if you don't have hp or defenses you have sturdier characters to stand between you and danger, and a cleric to buff and heal you. If you don't have damage dealing, you stand between the monsters and the people that can do damage. If you don't have skills then you protect the guy that has them, and if you have skills you help everyone avoid dangers that would consume other resources so they can fight when you can't.

Having 4 points less in a stat means your modifier is 2 points less than it would have been. It is trivial to find an extra +2 bonus for anything you could want, so why is it so horrible to have a 14 instead of an 18, or a 10 instead of a 14? The game does not assume that everyone will have 18s in every stat they could possibly need, in fact I'm sure someone can provide the link where it's revealed that the core books were tested assuming heal bots and blaster casters. Just because the internet is used to a certain level of optimization doesn't mean that that is the norm. How do you define being good at your job? Being good at your job is not winning every fight 100% with no damage, being good at your job is winning the fight in the first place.

Assuming every character is entitled to survival? I don't want my characters dying either, but the game has resurrection spells for a reason. Death is a danger of adventuring, and no adventurer should assume they can survive indefinitely. For a 5 man party, the 20% of total resources spent on a standard CR encounter could very well be 1 man, and that's before the high threat encounters that a lot of people like. The game does not assume that you're invincible, it assumes that if you go down you'll go down fighting and get back up later, and you don't need maximum stats to do that.

And as for SAD casters vs. MAD martials? Yeah, that's a problem with the system, but if the party is working as a group then as I said above, it's trivially easy to make up for the deficiencies of any character. That's what magic is for: your 4 slots per level per day aren't supposed to be just for you. They're supposed to the the party's allotment of your type of magic for the day, and part of that is shoring up each other's weaknesses. If you aren't sharing your spells then the fighter shouldn't be sharing his hit points.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-07, 04:06 AM
What a lovely long rant sir, and what does it have to do with rolling vs point buy?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-07, 04:21 AM
Neither of those two characters is competent in the slightest. They are both bumbling idiots.
...
A character's relative skill does not indicate a character's relative narrative power.
Nothing except the author's skill dictates a character's narrative power in a story. But FRPGs aren't purely stories, where the hero always gets in a lucky shot just when necessary to stay alive. They're also mechanical systems where the character's abilities are repeatedly exercised, and poor attributes will (statistically) get you killed. And a bumbling idiot character will pretty quickly die off, no matter how charming or entertaining they might be for story purposes. That's pretty much the end of their narrative power.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-07, 04:23 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Rincewind, one of the most popular characters of a nationally best selling series that rivals Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy in fans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincewind)

Come to think of it. Arthur Dent too.

Neither of those two characters is competent in the slightest. They are both bumbling idiots. Sure. Rincewind has his moments and has a little bit of talent for diplomacy, but for the most part, he gets through on a superior skill of running away and pure luck.

Arthur Dent is even worse. He's kinda an idiot. He's literally non-special, but he's still a beloved character.

A character's relative skill does not indicate a character's relative narrative power. Furthermore, not everyone wants to be the big guy on the block when role-playing. Some people actually ENJOY playing challenging and disadvantaged characters.

Also, while I TYPICALLY don't advocate point buy, I don't see how you're coming across the idea that it makes inept characters. I've made characters that were incredibly successful from rolling that had a highest stat of 15 and an overall cumulative stat modifier of +2. In that same campaign, one of our most incompetent characters had no stat LOWER than a 14 (yes, we saw him roll it). There's always the chance of the literal disaster roll, but a good GM really should allow a player to reroll around it for extreme cases, and honestly, allowing a player to reroll until they're happy as long as they discard the old set really isn't a bad thing unless your players are so obsessed with good stats that they'll reroll 100+ times.

Point is. Ability scores are kinda overrated at times. It's what you do with what you have, not what you have, that counts.

:smallconfused: So...

-what you're saying is that low point-buy is ideal for running humorous/satirical games as opposed to heroic fantasy? I could not agree more. :smallbiggrin:

Eloi
2010-06-07, 04:27 AM
Maybe there should be a system that is determined by your character's backstory and description.
Like, if your character is an unsocialized half-ork with horrible breath that dislikes talking people, your charisma shouldn't be 19. Or, if you character is a frail and pacifistic who has never held a sword in their lives, they shouldn't have a strength more than 15.
I don't think you can make this into a reliable system, but it'd make much more sense, role-playing wise.

senrath
2010-06-07, 04:44 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Rincewind, one of the most popular characters of a nationally best selling series that rivals Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy in fans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincewind)

Come to think of it. Arthur Dent too.

Neither of those two characters is competent in the slightest. They are both bumbling idiots. Sure. Rincewind has his moments and has a little bit of talent for diplomacy, but for the most part, he gets through on a superior skill of running away and pure luck.

Arthur Dent is even worse. He's kinda an idiot. He's literally non-special, but he's still a beloved character.

A character's relative skill does not indicate a character's relative narrative power. Furthermore, not everyone wants to be the big guy on the block when role-playing. Some people actually ENJOY playing challenging and disadvantaged characters.


And many, such as myself, would never even consider playing anyone like Rincewind or Arthur. Both only survive because their author wants them to, and most of the DMs I play with don't go out of their way to make sure players survive.

Zombimode
2010-06-07, 04:55 AM
I personally love the PB system. It puts all of the PCs on an even footing, ability wise. Otherwise, if you have one person roll REALLY well, and one person roll below average, there might be some resentment between players.

Yeah, and with pointbuy you have one guy wanting to play a druid or any other SAD class, and another wanting to play a paladin or any other MAD class.
Any better?

QuantumSteve
2010-06-07, 05:05 AM
Yeah, and with pointbuy you have one guy wanting to play a druid or any other SAD class, and another wanting to play a paladin or any other MAD class.
Any better?

Better than the Druid with a +16 character and the Paladin with a +2?

Yes.

Poil
2010-06-07, 05:07 AM
Personally I am a bit biased against rolling because I never get any good rolls while two guys in particular seem to have divine intervention preventing them from rolling anything lower than 14. I partially solved it by demanding one of them make my rolls for me. :smalltongue:

Point buy is more "fair" but it's not nearly as exciting.

lothos
2010-06-07, 05:10 AM
An approach I like is everyone rolls 4d6b3, and everyone gets to choose the array they like best.

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but what does 4d6b3 mean ?

Does it mean you roll 6 stats (in a set order or in any order ?) using 4d6... then repeat this process 3 times.. and pick the set of 6 you like best ?

That sounds interesting if that's what it means. Please can you let me know if I've got it wrong.

senrath
2010-06-07, 05:16 AM
4d6b3 means "roll 4 d6s, and use only the best 3"

lothos
2010-06-07, 05:19 AM
4d6b3 means "roll 4 d6s, and use only the best 3"

So... it's the same thing as the thing I've always known as "4d6, discard the lowest", but with another name ?

So to clarify, you end up rolling 4d6 and keeping the 3 best a total of 6 times. Then you arrange the stats in order any way you like....

That's the method we always used to use in 1st Edition AD&D. I'm not sure it was ever officially sanctioned in the rules, but it's what we used...

Yora
2010-06-07, 05:21 AM
With Point Buy you can make the character you want. With rolling you have to make do with what you got.

senrath
2010-06-07, 05:22 AM
So... it's the same thing as the thing I've always known as "4d6, discard the lowest", but with another name ?

So to clarify, you end up rolling 4d6 and keeping the 3 best a total of 6 times. Then you arrange the stats in order any way you like....

That's the method we always used to use in 1st Edition AD&D. I'm not sure it was ever officially sanctioned in the rules, but it's what we used...

Yup. It's just using the forum roller's formatting.

Killer Angel
2010-06-07, 05:32 AM
In the old times (AD&D) i loved rolling 4d6, discarding the lower.
I liked it more than point buy, 'cause not all the heroes are equals, right?
But then, i slowly changed my mind: with 3.x the attributes are very important, and the group should be on the same power level (I'm not talking 'bout tiers, for the moment).

I dislike rolling dices Vs point buy, because it sucks, to having in the same group a PC with 18, 17, 16, 16, 13, 10, and another one with 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 9.
Once, one of my friends rolled a character with three 18 (rolling 4d6 in front of all of us); the highest stat for my PC, was a 16. To play a campaign with such a gap, is really awful, one of the unfairier things I can think of.

SO, every pc should have the same point base value. Eventually, you can adjust the amount of points, accordingly to tiers. Example:
Tiers 1-2: 28 pts
Tiers 3-4: 32 pts
Lower tiers: 36 pts

Amphetryon
2010-06-07, 05:48 AM
For PbP, I'm actually a fan of 6 + 3d4; everyone's stats will be high-average, 18s are still special, and the only way to have multiple penalties involves worse luck than statistically likely and/or racial modifiers.

On the other hand, my old group and I ran one game, years ago, where we let our usual 'dice jeebus' roll an array for everyone. Naturally, Lady Luck had some fun with his 4d6b3, roll 7 times drop lowest, so everyone ended up with something like 16 15 13 12 11 4...

Poil
2010-06-07, 05:50 AM
SO, every pc should have the same point base value. Eventually, you can adjust the amount of points, accordingly to tiers. Example:
Tiers 1-2: 28 pts
Tiers 3-4: 32 pts
Lower tiers: 36 pts

That's pretty interesting, but differences in player skill or optimizing abilities could throw that out the window. I need to tell my dm about it (although he'd never agree to use point buy since he rolls like Tymora).

Also you forgot one. :smallbiggrin:
Monk: 105 pts.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-07, 05:52 AM
Personally I'm a fan of point buy over rolling. I like the fact that you can play what you want instead of what you rolled.

It also helps non-full-casters due to the diminishing returns you get as you raise abilities that aren't needed (a Paladin who's gotten enough stats high to raise Wisdom gets increased spellcasting, Wisdom based skills (which a lot of their skills are) and Will saves (which are probably high at level two and up, but more static than those of a class with a good Will progression). A Wizard doing the same gets increased Wisdom based skills (very few worth a Wizard's time and effort, important ones are probably just a few saved spell slots anyway) and Will saves (which are already high)).

When our party has finished it's first adventure in D20 Modern (we rolled for stats, my highest a fifteen and lowest were a seven and an eight, most of the other party members got two stats of fifteen or more and had at worst one eight) I'll be running an adventure using gestalt and a 40 point point-buy. I expect the party to be worried when they see that the DMG lists a 32 point-buy under "high powered campaign".

Yora
2010-06-07, 05:57 AM
Well, pb40 sounds like classic demigod heroes.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-07, 06:03 AM
Well, pb40 sounds like classic demigod heroes.

Gestalt demigod heroes!

Anyway it's not that bad, one of the main villains I've statted has only one eighteen before the increases due to level ups and magic (in Charisma, and he has Paladin of Tyranny levels. Anything requiring a save can more or less be laughed off. Important saves anyway, his reflex is only +6 or so but I haven't bought magic items yet)

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 06:37 AM
Also you forgot one. :smallbiggrin:
Monk: 105 pts.

Truenamer: >9000?!

...Sounds about right.

Ferrin
2010-06-07, 06:59 AM
I love PB because it takes away the randomness, I can create a character and not have to ditch some of the ideas I had because of low rolls. As well as others looking at me funny if I roll high. It's just to random for me. :smalleek:

Iferus
2010-06-07, 07:02 AM
This is how I let my players generate their scores:

To generate a character, go to www.pbegames.com/chardnd/; create five characters using “4d6 drop lowest, in order”, and have them emailed to me. Display them or email them to yourself to see the result, and then email me which result you are going to pick.


This allows for more organic characters, something I find lacking in point-buy characters.

Yora
2010-06-07, 07:17 AM
I see how it can be fun to build a character with certain random limitations in mind.
But how does that make a character more organic. And what does organic even mean in this context?

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 07:19 AM
But how does that make a character more organic. And what does organic even mean in this context?

Well, my character was assimilated by the Point-Borg, and since then all of my characters have been square and metallic...

No idea, actually.

Roderick_BR
2010-06-07, 07:28 AM
Thing is, PCs are assumed to be adventurers who are at least competent. There may be plenty of fighters better suited for monasteries out in the world, but they not going to survive long as adventurers and they're not really PC material. It may be more realistic to have stats not fitting your class, but it's also less fun; who'd want to be a wizard that can't cast spells?
Technically, the simple fact that the PCs are using PC classes, instead of NPC classes, it already means they are "strong" adventurers, or at least stronger than normal people. There's no real reason for the PCs to be stronger or weaker than other adventurers (that also use PC classes), unless the players and DMs want the players to be more "heroic".

Myself, I usually use 32 point buy for my group. Unless the players are whinners that complain if they don't get a lot of 18s, they do well with it.

Yora
2010-06-07, 07:39 AM
I actually prefer pb25. :smallbiggrin:

It sucks for paladins and sorcerer/monks, but I like the idea of PCs being heroes because they accomplish great things because they take risks and overcome obstacles by thinking and not through force, instead of being heroic because they are born heroic (and are just plain better in everything than normal people).
Pb25 still gets you a total of +6 on Ability modifiers and allows one ability at 16 at first level. For low- to mid-level campaigns, I think that is completely enough.

Greenish
2010-06-07, 07:51 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen. Rincewind, one of the most popular characters of a nationally best selling series that rivals Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy in fans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincewind)

Come to think of it. Arthur Dent too.Yes, and your party will want to take your incompetent little runt with them to slay dragons because…?

Staying alive with impenetrable plot armour* is all well and good for characters in a story told solely by one person. They won't work in a cooperative game.


*See how far you'll get with your DM when you tell him/her that you can't be killed because you have one of the most powerful spells in the universe in your head, keeping you alive even if it requires rewriting the whole reality.
See if the idea that your character can't die (because he hasn't yet been in a certain bar where a time-traveling reincarnator saw him) will fly.

See if the other players are happy to drag your incompetent death weight around just because you're so important to the plot.

Ossian
2010-06-07, 07:57 AM
It depends on what I am planning on throwing at them.

PB32 is all right to me, and with level advancement (+1 every four levels) and items available ("bauble of +x to Ability y") you can actually go nuts with your campaign, although I do prefer the 4d6 keep highest 3 rolls method, especially for one shot games. There is no time to waste, and you have to pick me a class and a race, old style, then give me six of those rolls and put them to the abilities you like. You want a charismatic leader? A burly stocky rogue, a ninja, a clever peasant, a cunning academic, a hardy paladin? pick one and let's go.

O.

Gnaeus
2010-06-07, 08:07 AM
Why do they have to be inept? I think it's poor system design that makes the players answer "Are you awesome or not?" Being awesome should be a given. Character generation should ask "How are you awesome?" and not "How awesome are you?" There really shouldn't be suboptimal choices. No one wants to play an incompetent character, so why is sucking even an option? You shouldn't have to play a limited number of specific "builds" to be optimal.

If you're going to have a game where power is balanced and defined by levels, then they should all be equally balanced. It shouldn't be possible to make two characters of equal level that aren't equally effective.

I disagree strongly. Many people enjoy making suboptimal characters, or unique characters whose non-standardness (like a wizard with higher Str than Int) make them suboptimal by default. I played a kinfolk in a werewolf game for many years, in which most brand new starting PCs could physically destroy my character with years of XP on him in a single round, and generally had better magical abilities as well. It was one of my favorite characters. Likewise, many people enjoy playing weaker classes or builds, sometimes BECAUSE they are weaker (to get the reaction, or to challenge themselves, or for story reasons, or whatever.)

What you DON'T want, IMO, is to make a character whose rules/stats do not let him meet the level of awesome implicit in his concept. It is great to play Dent or Rincewind if you WANT to play Dent or Rincewind, but if you were trying to build Gandalf and you wound up with Rincewind you are going to be very disappointed.

Duskranger
2010-06-07, 08:17 AM
I hate point-buy actually. I prefer to roll the stats. But honestly we have a system that works. Roll your stats in front of the DM a little time before you need it. He writes your stats down and than see what you have.

Total modifier of +1 means a reroll of the complete array, yes it happens, but at the moment I move in the world with a char with: 18,17,15,15,13,13. With point buy this wouldn't have happened. And yes it's not perfect and yes you can have a char with very low stats. But even so, not everyone is the same.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-07, 08:32 AM
I see how it can be fun to build a character with certain random limitations in mind.
But how does that make a character more organic. And what does organic even mean in this context?

Like a stat block that follows standard deviation and has results you would expect to see from a random generation.

For example: 18,14,14,8,8,8 has too many even numbers, the same numbers appear too often, and has too many outliers. It's unlikely too occur randomly, and if someone told me they rolled this, I'd have my doubts. (Though likely wouldn't care)

15,14,13,13,10,7 on the other hand: While it does favor odd numbers, most numbers are in a cluster with only a single outlier. It's more likely to be the result of a random roll.

For some, (myself included) this "natural" feeling stat block might seem more like attributes someone was actually born with rather than grown in a vat.

This is just a minor, aesthetic difference, though, and I still prefer point-buy despite this.

Grogmir
2010-06-07, 08:43 AM
As a DM I insist on PB.

Balance is difficult to maintain in DnD (easier in 4th ed) and the character gen is the time when you’ll have a lot of unbalancing requests from you players.

It’s also the MOST important time to be strong and say no – cause if you start that game with one character obvious stronger than another the game aint going to last long.

As others have said – if they feel weak increase their PB and up the monsters 1 level.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-07, 11:07 AM
Generally, in my group every player rolls 4d6b3 and then the second-best stat array is used by all PCs and NPCs. You get the intra-party balance of point buy with the unpredictability of rolling, and since stat variation vs. balance seem to be the main features of either side, it seems to be a good compromise.

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 11:26 AM
There is one person who rolls phenominally well with 4d6b3, no matter what dice he uses or if someone is watching him. So what I do is I have everyone roll 2 stats, resulting in 2 stats to be dropped, 2 very good ones (usually around 15-18) and 4 average to good stats (between 8 and 14, mostly). And have everyone use that.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-06-07, 11:54 AM
Although my group prefers rolling 4d6b3 I actually like point but more (been victim of the bad luck while rolling for stats kinda make you biased to that).

But when I run my campaing (hopefully this summer) I will put this stat generating method (Note: this is kinda tailor made for my group who consist of 7 people including me)

Each person in the group rolls 4d6be3 Once, the lowest one is rerolled by me.

This way we get the randomness most of my group likes and still have a semblance of balance.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-07, 12:00 PM
Well, pb40 sounds like classic demigod heroes.

40 Point buy isn't even CLOSE to classic demigod hero level. For that you need superhuman abilities, not a couple of 99.5 percentile abilities.

But 40 points isn't even the best in a medium sized city. Have your friendly computer role up 10,000 or so characters, 3d6 six times in order, calculate the point buy totals, and put them in order highest to lowest, and see what you get.

Go ahead and subtract points for scores lower than 8.

Hint: totals of 40 or more are fairly common in a decent sized town full of 3d6 rolled NPCs.

I just did a set, 53, 50, 49, 48 ,47, 3x46, 6x45. The top 48 people have a 40+ point buy total, substantially MORE than have an 18 in Wisdom for example.

A second try produces two characters at 54. Third try three characters at 50(despite one of them taking a -3 for a 5 Strength, if I didn't count that as negative he'd be a 53 pointer, and somehow I don't think he'd be a fighter or strength using class).

Throw in a requirement that you roll max HP at level 1 and that you have a 14+ in Con, and you are STILL going to be able to build an adventuring party of 40 point buy characters out of any city with 10,000 adults.

The fact that it is a point buy means point buys are more efficient (no PB character has three scores of 17 for example) means that 40 with choice is likely to be better than any of those 10,000 guys. But it's not really an unreasonable total.

25 point buy isn't even "best in a small village", it's not even 90th percentile.

AmberVael
2010-06-07, 12:10 PM
Have your friendly computer role up 10,000 or so characters, 3d6 six times in order, calculate the point buy totals, and put them in order highest to lowest, and see what you get.

I somehow doubt you did anything other than check the end results yourself, which brings up the question: What did you use to calculate so many D&D character rolls so quickly?

I mean, I can think of how you would make the program behind it, but I can't think of anything offhand which would readily allow me to do it without going in and making the program myself (bleh).

So what were you using? The inquiring mind wishes to know (so she can use it herself).

DragoonWraith
2010-06-07, 12:25 PM
Excel could do that trivially. I just ran 5,000 4d6b3 characters; highest point-buy was 63. The RANDBETWEEN function is annoyingly volatile, though.

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 12:33 PM
Excel could do that trivially. I just ran 5,000 4d6b3 characters; highest point-buy was 63.

Some leadership cheese and you can just get your 5,000 followers to do it!

2xMachina
2010-06-07, 12:42 PM
Some leadership cheese and you can just get your 5,000 followers to do it!

With leadership cheese, your followers have better stats than you.

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 12:47 PM
With leadership cheese, your followers have better stats than you.

Well, after 5,000 rolls, probably someone will.

Kiroth6
2010-06-07, 01:11 PM
Yes, and your party will want to take your incompetent little runt with them to slay dragons because…?

Staying alive with impenetrable plot armour* is all well and good for characters in a story told solely by one person. They won't work in a cooperative game.


I'll agree that giving single player plot armor won't work in a cooperative game. If you are giving immunity from death it should be an all or nothing deal to make things fair. The plot armor of Dent and Rincewind wasn't introduced until after their first books so likewise you shouldn't introduce a character with that sort of advantage from the start. However, you could always roleplay a Rincewind but actually be a competant contributing member of the party. It depends on the party make-up of course but its not impossible.

Greenish
2010-06-07, 01:27 PM
However, you could always roleplay a Rincewind but actually be a competant contributing member of the party.Of course, but did you even read what I was replying to?

PersonMan
2010-06-07, 01:30 PM
You could always be an incompetent fool who only survives by the power of plot who isn't actually an incompetent fool who doesn't only survive by the power of plot...right? :smallconfused:

Kiroth6
2010-06-07, 02:05 PM
Of course, but did you even read what I was replying to?

Yes, but I thought you were replying to Rincewind as a player character aspect since you were replying to someone replying to someone that claimed that no one would want to read about an incompetent character. Apparently I was mistaken. That said while there should be limits to how badly someone can roll for a character. A little bit of variation isn't necessarily a bad thing.


You could always be an incompetent fool who only survives by the power of plot who isn't actually an incompetent fool who doesn't only survive by the power of plot...right? :smallconfused:

Sorry, I'll give you an example from one of our campaigns. X plays a character who is a former god reduced to human form. As a former god he's not used to these human things, like common sense or breathing. So the character comes off as pretty incompetent. The thing is while the character is incompetent, the player is not. They pick and choose how they act when they act incompetently and then flavor text their actions to explain away their competant actions. In character they can claim that their survival is due to the universe respecting their importance, when really its just the player using their seemingly useless skills well.

However that's not exactly what is being discussed here so I apologize for the small sidetrack.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-07, 06:15 PM
I somehow doubt you did anything other than check the end results yourself, which brings up the question: What did you use to calculate so many D&D character rolls so quickly?

I mean, I can think of how you would make the program behind it, but I can't think of anything offhand which would readily allow me to do it without going in and making the program myself (bleh).

So what were you using? The inquiring mind wishes to know (so she can use it herself).

I used EXCEL this time, but there's FORTRAN on this computer so I could have used that.

It's fairly trivial. 3d6 is
=INT(RAND()*6)+INT(RAND()*6)+INT(RAND()*6)+3
The point value of a given roll can be done by two nested if checks: I think it's
=IF(A1<15,A1-8,IF(A1<17,A1*2-22,A1*3-38))
You can test the if nesting by typing a few values into the cell that's supposed to hold the roll, and making sure it works, the above is from in my head just now, I didn't save the spreadsheet. You can also check for less than 8 if you like and assign a point cost of 0 to that, but I didn't bother and mentioned that I had a roll of 50 that would have been 53 if I had bothered.

Sum the costs, copy and paste special (paste values), then sort. It works best if you have one character per row, so the copy, count, and sort are all easy.

You can modify to get 4d6, drop one, by doing four d6 in separate cells (it's EASY to copy cells, using 24 per row doesn't cost anything). Sum all four dice for one roll, and then subtract the MIN(range) for those four cells.

From start of programming to end result is a couple of minutes.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-07, 07:05 PM
Of course, but did you even read what I was replying to?

In all fairness, I think people missed what I was replying to as well. The blanket statement was that there was no such thing as a inept protagonist that was interesting and that NO ONE would ever want to play a weak character. The second point is essentially something that's been proven wrong multiple times. So, I'm not really going to address it in its entirety, but the first point needed to be addressed.

Disregarding that, you can still find protagonists that are just flat-out outnumbered, outsmarted, and overpowered that still are interesting and still manage to overcome. Hell, it's practically the point of Captain Tylor in the Irresponsible Captain Tylor (depending on how you choose to see it), and he'd still be a fun protagonist to mess around with. He and a few other characters are entirely the reason Luckies EXIST in Pirates vs. Ninjas.

Even barring actual mechanics for plot armor that balance with actual game powers, it's possible to play a weak character, even in a party of powerful ones and play and interesting and contributing character. A good GM knows how to weave ALL their PC's into the plot in some way and in games where you're not specifically aiming to kill the PCs knows how to give them a break. It's mostly a matter of playing to what strengths and weaknesses each player has. Even the most pathetic character should have SOMETHING no one else has, even if its just profession (basket weaving) skill or just a simple viewpoint and morality that plays into the over-arching plot.

After all, my current D20 modern character is literally a God that nerfed himself to experience humanity (because he was bored). Despite high ability scores, he's probably the single most worthless character in combat, and his specific skill set isn't always relevant to the plot at hand. Matter of fact, about half of his trained skills haven't been used more than once. On top of all that, he's so clueless that he'd literally kill himself if it weren't for the other PCs constantly informing him of his misgivings and misunderstandings of human culture and physical function. We're talking someone that doesn't expect to die if hit by a truck at 80 mph, blames one character's failed marriage on Mr. Coffee Nerves, and frequently forgets to eat and is baffled by bleeding when stabbed.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing him and doesn't mean that the GM hasn't included him into the plot. By all means, he's more incompetent than anyone in the party... BY FAR. Pretty much, his entire party role is delegated to knowledge (history and arcane) and explorer lore checks. Which usually just means that 1. He's willing to believe patently ridiculous things when others won't and helps drives the plot in that sense. 2. Can act as a mouthpiece for the GM to explain setting and history details.

This really is one of my favorite characters though. He adds comic relief to the campaign and gives a lot of the players something to keep drawing them together. His ridiculous viewpoint gives the players something to work with. Would I play him again? Of course I would. It's been a blast.

And this is a character that is, by all stretches of the imagination, more incompetent and has less of a survival instinct that Dent and Rincewind combined. So, yes. It is ENTIRELY possible to do it.

Sometimes you can just have fun playing a character for what it is and just rolling with what comes your way. Think of it as a D&D speed-run.

EDIT:

Sorry, I'll give you an example from one of our campaigns. X plays a character who is a former god reduced to human form. As a former god he's not used to these human things, like common sense or breathing. So the character comes off as pretty incompetent. The thing is while the character is incompetent, the player is not. They pick and choose how they act when they act incompetently and then flavor text their actions to explain away their competant actions. In character they can claim that their survival is due to the universe respecting their importance, when really its just the player using their seemingly useless skills well.

However that's not exactly what is being discussed here so I apologize for the small sidetrack.

Yeesh. Ninja'd. With the number of you guys now reading Giantitp on a regular basis, I REALLY need to be careful what I talk about, huh?

And yeah. Kiroth's pretty much got it. I'm a skill-monkey with bad skill choices, but the creativity to use them in unexpected ways at the right time. Kicking back and working with what you've got instead of insisting on being on exactly equal footing with everyone else can be a REALLY fun challenge.

huttj509
2010-06-07, 07:21 PM
My general stance is that playing an underpowered or weak character on purpose is fine.

Playing one by accident because the system obfuscated the issues with the class (*cough*monk*cough*) is very frustrating.

Playing one because you rolled poorly for stats while others rolled well, well, that's sorta in between. I mean, before you start making the character you look at the rolls and realise in raw potential power you may be behind others. So at that point you then choose the character to play. However, you were put into the situation by chance.

Of course, if I'm rolling for stats I don't choose my character until after I see what my rolls are like, then let it develop. If you have your heart pre-set on a character the frustration is higher.

PId6
2010-06-07, 07:34 PM
Exactly as above.

Purposefully playing suboptimal or flawed characters is perfectly fine. Pretty much everyone not playing a Tier 1 caster (or Pun Pun for that matter) is making a suboptimal choice. But that's fine, because that's the character they want to play. Having a high point buy doesn't stop you from making flawed characters unless your character concept demands that all your stats be low (which is overtly metagamey since stats are highly abstract). You can choose weak classes, put points in dis-synergetic stats, and do various other things to purposefully make yourself weak. High point buy doesn't stop you from making weak characters (and I'm sure your DM won't disallow you using less point buy than you're given, if it comes to that).

However, if your character concept isn't supposed to be weak, but you turn out that way because you roll poor stats, that's a flaw in the system. Purposefully playing a weak character is fine as long as you know what you're doing and your table doesn't mind; being forced to do it, however, is a terrible thing and that's what point buy combats. People should be playing the character that they want to play.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-07, 07:44 PM
I agree entirely. Players shouldn't really be forced to play weak characters, but there is a reason to, and there are groups that support it. You shouldn't really force players to roll for stats, but there are people that enjoy it from time to time. There seems to be a mentality in some posts that there's no real redeeming factor to it and the only reason people try to is to cheat and get better ability scores.

Just reminding people that not everyone plays RPGs like your personal table does.

huttj509
2010-06-07, 07:46 PM
Sometimes I like rolling in that I can get some lower scores.

Point buy I have difficulty choosing to have a score low. if I roll one however, it can be fun to work with it.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-07, 08:01 PM
Rolling has advantages and disadvantages.

Point buy has advantages and disadvantages.

An established Array has advantages and disadvantages.

I can't think of anything that doesn't have a disadvantage. All you can do is what works well for you group.