Want input at a stats-related discussion

[Zerter]

Our session derailed a little towards today the end as the result of a discussion concerning the stats of the characters of a newly made party in Pathfinder (causing us to call it quits for today as it was late already, no real harm done otherwise). I want to sketch the situation, not really take a side in the discussion otherwise, and get some opinions. Note that it is not the case that the party is really fighting over this or anything, a ruling was made by the DM and accepted by the players. The case was that the discussion went on because of the 'winning' party trying to convince the 'losing' party it was right even after the ruling was accepted.

- The party stats (three characters) are put together rolling dice (either 4x4d6 or 6x1d20).
- The party is formed around a pre-existing character. To protect the viability of this pre-existing character he is told he has the option to get a point-buy that is in relationship to the results of the other two characters.
- He accepts this option. The other two roll.

What happens:

- The first character rolls a point-buy of 25 in locked stats.
- The pre-existing character get assigned a point-buy of 20 for now.
- The second character rolls a point-buy of 48 in locked stats.
- The pre-existing gets assigned a point-buy of ?.

The discussion:

The rolling players
The two rolling players argue that the point-buy assigned to the pre-existing character should be in relationship to that of the lowest roll (meaning a point-buy slightly below that of 25 to make up for being able to customize stats).

Their arguments were:

1. They took a risk and it paid out. The counter-party did not. One of the players should not be behind the other player with him not taking a risk.
2. The counter-party could have rolled as well. In fact they don't mind this option being made open again so he can try his luck if he wants.
3. The counter-party's expectations should have been based on the form used to get the results, not the actual results. Meaning he should have expected a 15 point-buy (which relates to 6x4d6 and 6x1d20) and should consider himself lucky to actually be points above it.

Counter-arguments to this were:

1. His decision was chance-neutral. There should no upside and no downside. One player being behind him is inherent to the system.
2. Opening up the option to roll does not carry any real value if it is done after the characters have already seen their own significantly strong rolls.
3. It was expressly stated the point-buy would be in relationship to the results.

The pre-existing character player (PCP)

PCP argues that after having been assigned his (temporary) 20 point-buy it should be adjusted upwards after the new (better) roll to be in relationship with the stats of both players.

His arguments were:

1. When told his stats will be in relationship to both characters he can expect a second (positive) adjustment after the second character rolls great stats as compared to the first character.
2. He saw the option he picked as being neutral: there is no potential upside and no potential downside. In fact he had wanted them all to do point-buy, the other two players were the ones that insisted on rolling and taking a chance.
3. The player with the lower stats does get disadvantaged and he would prefer this was not the case. But he carries no responsibility, this is inherent to the system used.

The counter-arguments to this were:

1. The meaning of his point-buy being in relationship to the stats of the other two players were that he could have expected a negative adjustment if the second player had rolled significantly lower than the first since they should be assigned some protection based on their risk-taking.
2. He should be given stats that put him in line with the lower rolling character, the upside was much too great given the results of the other two if he was placed inbetween. The option to roll is made open to the PCP as far as the other two characters were concerned and this would be fair as well.
3. It is in fact unfair to the player with the lowers stats to be given stats a fair bit below that of the PCP. The PCP wanted to play it safe and he should not be rewarded for this.

Thoughts?

[Hybrid Monkey D]

When you say "option to get a point-buy that is in relationship to the results of the other two characters," it should be expected that the PCP's point-buy be increased to better reflect the new average set by the rolling players. To not alter the PCP's point-buy would be to ignore half the results upon which his point-buy is based.

[SaintRidley]

What Hybrid Monkey said, but if I may ask, why do you have such a convoluted system in place? They should all use the same point buy, or be able to choose for themselves from all rolled statblocks. Then nobody gets upset that character creation was "unfair."

[Zerter]

why do you have such a convoluted system in place?

This was the result of a series of decisions basically 'winging' how stats were made. The PCP wanted everyone to use point-buy. The other two players wanted everyone to roll dice. The DM ruled everyone to roll dice. The PCP wanted to go first in rolling. Before he rolled dice the DM gave him the before mentioned option.

This because he was already locked mostly into a certain character build that had been made using stats generated in a different campaign (the other two characters were free, the campaign was to revolve around this character). Because this character was MAD the DM felt it better to present a safe option so there was little risk of the character ending up (in his view) unplayable.

Note that an argument I did not present (which also not present at the table) is that the character is playable with a point-buy that is in relationship to the point-buy of the lower rolling player. Therefore it can be argued the intention behind why the option was presented by the DM is satisfied if this is the ruling.

[KillianHawkeye]

IMO, everyone should use the same character generation method.

However, if you were to do something such as this, you really should specify the details ahead of time so people don't get into an argument about what Statement B actually means when the results are X and Y. The meaning of whatever details should have been made clear before proceeding with the rolls.

[eggs]

Thoughts?
Mostly that this is a ridiculous character-building method, especially if the actual method hasn't been decided before being implemented.

But if the group's using it, I'd give the existing character the same character-building options as the other two (and only those options, not the thing that's going on here, with three different character-building parameters).

If he uses the same options as the other players and winds up rebuilding his character and more, good for him. If his abilities bonus has to drop a few points, tough.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Just do different statgen. Everyone starts out with a base of six in every stat, and rolls 3d6 drop lowest for all stats and adds the results to the sixes. Everyone rolls 4d6 drop lowest, but you can use any generated selection (so if one guy rolls a 20 point buy, and one rolls a 40 point buy, or one guy rolls 12 14 14 15 16 16 and another rolls 10 12 12 14 15 18, then they can choose to use the other guy's, but the other guy can also use it, as well as anyone else who wants to), assigned to stats as the individuals wish. Or just use a set point buy. For Pathfinder, I like 25.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I would have to agree with the PCP. If he is offered a point-buy that is in relation to the rolls of both the other characters, giving him a result slightly under the lower rolling player, and far under the average of the two is a severe twisting of what seems to have been the agreement. Yes, the PCP went with the low-risk option, sometimes playing it safe pays off. Roller#1 went with a higher risk option, if the PCP ends up ahead of him, that is not the fault of the PCP, it is the fault of the Roller#1 choosing to take his chances. If a person chooses to take risks, he needs to be willing to accept that sometimes it won't pay off. In my opinion, this should be one such time. Had roller #2 rolled terribly, PCP would have taken the hit as well. The position of PCP was not without its own risks, he merely was in a position to spread his risk across a number of others.
Also, there was another risk PCP was taking. If both other players had rolled stats quite near to each other (not unlikely if both used the d6s method), the negative adjustment he is taking for point-buy customization would have put him in a position where he gets a worse point buy than either fellow party member.

[navar100]

Start over. Everyone uses the same method. You can have a vote of which method - roll 4d6 drop lowest, roll two sets, pick one or 25 Point Buy. Should the method used significantly alter the pre-existing character from what his scores were before, get over it, or don't have the pre-existing character at all.

[Gavinfoxx]

Start over. Everyone uses the same method. You can have a vote of which method - roll 4d6 drop lowest, roll two sets, pick one or 25 Point Buy. Should the method used significantly alter the pre-existing character from what his scores were before, get over it, or don't have the pre-existing character at all.

This. EVERYONE uses the same method, or they don't play. Period.

[Heatwizard]

It seems like the simplest option is to give 'im 32 point buy; average between the two is more like 36/37, so that's being a little miserly.

And then I'd give the 25-point guy an upgrade to 32 points as well, because dayumn, son. But when I took an ill-fated shot at DMing, I let everyone roll 4d6 best 3, in private, and then switch to 32 point buy if they didn't like it, so I might just be generous. (That's not why it was ill-fated, mind, it was because I'm a bad writer and college classes started taking up too much time.)

[navar100]

It seems like the simplest option is to give 'im 32 point buy; average between the two is more like 36/37, so that's being a little miserly.

And then I'd give the 25-point guy an upgrade to 32 points as well, because dayumn, son. But when I took an ill-fated shot at DMing, I let everyone roll 4d6 best 3, in private, and then switch to 32 point buy if they didn't like it, so I might just be generous. (That's not why it was ill-fated, mind, it was because I'm a bad writer and college classes started taking up too much time.)

This is Pathfinder. 25 Point Buy in Pathfinder is not the same thing as 25 Point Buy in 3E. 25 Point Buy Pathfinder is already the highest recommendation, equivalent to 36 3E Point Buy because you start at 10 in all scores and can go down to 7 for extra points.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pathfinder 20 pb is not equal to 32 pb!

Pathfinder pb is weird and hard to compare, because you get an extra point for dropping a score down to 7, then costs are the same (assuming a -2 to cost for Pathfinder due to starting two points higher) up to 13, then it's slightly more expensive in Pathfinder to buy 14 and 15, then it's even more expensive (exact same cost, except it's actually not due to PF point buy costing the same to get from 10 to 16-17 as it is to get from 8 to 16-17 in 3.5), and then it's even more expensive to raise it to eighteen!

So Pathfinder seems to encourage either a bunch of mediocre (for PCs) stats (12-13), or total minmaxing (reducing scores down to 7 gets the extra points you need to raise the other scores up higher).

Ultimately, though, a spread of 10-12-12-14-14-16 is 32 pb in 3.5, 24 pb in Pathfinder.

So 23-25 is roughly the equivalent of 32.

[gr8artist]

What we usually do:
When players roll, we tally up the average of their ability modifiers. Some players started before others, since people I play with can't always make it to the first game, and other reasons.
We try and make sure that players are roughly on par with each other. If one player is obviously way ahead of the others, we tone them down. They still get to be stronger, but who would want to play someone who was effectively a level or two higher than everyone else? likewise, we give the lowest rolling player a slight buff.
I mean, you can't expect a DM to let a player roll his stats, get 18's across the board, and keep that character build. The player is obviously overpowered for his level. Likewise, you wouldn't let a player play with all 8's.

[Answerer]

Rolling for any permanent stat is awful for the game and should never, ever even be allowed as an option.

The rolling players "took a chance" and it "paid out" – so what? They were no smarter, more creative, better roleplayers, etc. etc. etc. than anyone else at the table. They got lucky.

And while luck will always play a role in the game, most rolls are temporary. You are (un)lucky for now – but a permanent stat affects you for the entire game.

This is bad and should not be allowed. I have gotten to the point where I not only refuse to roll for my scores, I refuse to play in a game where anyone did. It only leads to skewed parties and bad feelings. Abolish it completely and utterly, I say.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Rolling for any permanent stat is awful for the game and should never, ever even be allowed as an option.

The rolling players "took a chance" and it "paid out" – so what? They were no smarter, more creative, better roleplayers, etc. etc. etc. than anyone else at the table. They got lucky.

And while luck will always play a role in the game, most rolls are temporary. You are (un)lucky for now – but a permanent stat affects you for the entire game.

This is bad and should not be allowed. I have gotten to the point where I not only refuse to roll for my scores, I refuse to play in a game where anyone did. It only leads to skewed parties and bad feelings. Abolish it completely and utterly, I say.

Rolling for stats is only for beer and pretzels games. And then, point buy is still probably less painful.

Then again, the premise of class-based systems, in my eyes, has only one benefit: simplicity. Some people also like the feel of "level up!". That should mean classes are also for beer and pretzels games. Unfortunately, 3.5 ends up being one of the most mind-numbingly complex systems out there, taking about a week to comprehend just the PHB.

[Jeff the Green]

There are not enough Jean-Luc Picard pictures in the world to express the face palm this situation merits.

Answerer and Jade Dragon are right: rolling stats for a game thats going to last more than a few sessions is a recipe for frustration and conflict between players. My solution: everyone uses a 46 pb, and you up the toughness of encounters slightly. That way no one is getting gipped. If the player who rolled the high scores objects, remind him that this is a cooperative game, and when two characters have such vastly different abilities it's very hard to cooperate effectively, and hard for you to balance encounters so you challenge the 46 pb character and don't squash the 25 pb character flat.