PDA

View Full Version : Can you lower your stat base in a point buy?



Gnomes2169
2014-04-27, 04:05 PM
I have a DM who says that you cannot, citing that the DMG does not allow you to do so, but every point buy calculator I've found gives me the option to lower my stats from their base 8. Is there an official ruling on this somewhere or errata that I might be missing? And if so, could a link be provided?

Siosilvar
2014-04-27, 04:07 PM
Your DM is correct in that it's not allowed by default. Those are usually provided for the house ruled option to do so or for calculating the point buy equivalent of rolled stats.

JusticeZero
2014-04-27, 06:34 PM
It's not allowed by default. If I were to allow it, i'd make it have an abysmal rate of return; i've had lots of bad experiences with heavy disadvantage systems of all kinds.

peacenlove
2014-04-29, 09:56 AM
In Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores)you can reduce your stats to 7
A similar approximation could be made as a houserule for 3.5.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-29, 11:31 AM
Racial penalties can drop you under the base level.

LibraryOgre
2014-04-29, 11:40 AM
So long as it is explicitly allowed, either by the GM or the book.

Rhynn
2014-04-29, 11:48 AM
Which edition of D&D? (Also, wrong subforum, but I can't report it to have it moved unless I know which edition... but you can do that yourself!)

Gnomes2169
2014-05-01, 01:19 PM
Which edition of D&D? (Also, wrong subforum, but I can't report it to have it moved unless I know which edition... but you can do that yourself!)

D&D 3.5, and I don't know who the mods are here so if you could do that it would be great >.>

LibraryOgre
2014-05-01, 01:52 PM
D&D 3.5, and I don't know who the mods are here so if you could do that it would be great >.>

The Mod Wonder: You can report things yourself, using the triangular button with an exclamation point in it; I didn't move this one because it's multi-system, relevant to 3.x, 4e, Saga.

Thinker
2014-05-01, 11:42 PM
It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-02, 02:55 PM
The Mod Wonder: You can report things yourself, using the triangular button with an exclamation point in it; I didn't move this one because it's multi-system, relevant to 3.x, 4e, Saga.
Ahhh, didn't notice that before, thank you Mark! :smallbiggrin:


It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.
That... seems like it would be unnecessarily harsh. The ratio of return for reduction is insignificant (1 point per 2 attributes in the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10), would mean that, under this rate, to make your 15 into 16, you would need to make your 10 a 4...), and the reduction of stat maxes is a massive blow, no matter what class you are playing. Going even further and removing the level 1 feat is just... way too high of a cost for no return. It would literally be gimping your character right from the start under that system...

I'd suggest instead that you make it 1 point per attribute point (Not attribute bonus, so a 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2), and that the stat caps be left alone, along with the level 1 feat.

Jay R
2014-05-02, 03:22 PM
I have a DM who says that you cannot...

By the rules, this is your answer. The DM of this game doesn't allow it.

Thinker
2014-05-02, 07:17 PM
That... seems like it would be unnecessarily harsh. The ratio of return for reduction is insignificant (1 point per 2 attributes in the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10), would mean that, under this rate, to make your 15 into 16, you would need to make your 10 a 4...), and the reduction of stat maxes is a massive blow, no matter what class you are playing. Going even further and removing the level 1 feat is just... way too high of a cost for no return. It would literally be gimping your character right from the start under that system...

I'd suggest instead that you make it 1 point per attribute point (Not attribute bonus, so a 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2), and that the stat caps be left alone, along with the level 1 feat.

Then everyone would just play fighters with 18 str, dex, and con.

MagnusExultatio
2014-05-02, 08:01 PM
Then everyone would just play fighters with 18 str, dex, and con.

So why is that supposed to be a big deal? How are the fighter's other stats?

Aedilred
2014-05-02, 08:37 PM
It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.
While I understand the basic principle of not allowing minmaxing by reducing some stats too far, this seems rather like heaping penalty on penalty for no particular reason. After a certain point (probably the unequal points exchange) you're no longer just stopping players from gaining a cheesy advantage, you're just punishing them further for having selected a disadvantage.

Thinker
2014-05-03, 02:37 AM
So why is that supposed to be a big deal? How are the fighter's other stats?
Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones. Every class can do this to get hyper advantages.


While I understand the basic principle of not allowing minmaxing by reducing some stats too far, this seems rather like heaping penalty on penalty for no particular reason. After a certain point (probably the unequal points exchange) you're no longer just stopping players from gaining a cheesy advantage, you're just punishing them further for having selected a disadvantage.

Good. A disadvantage should actually be a disadvantage, not the sort of bs where a player gains a feat in exchange for -2 to a skill. I think that every player choice should have an associated cost.

TuggyNE
2014-05-03, 05:35 AM
Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones.

Generally, I think this ignores the problem of ability damage/drain/penalties. If you have 1 Cha, 3 Int, and 4 Wis (necessary to get 18/18/18 with 32-point buy), you'll fail nearly all Will saves and a single spell or monster special ability hit from a variety of sources (ego whip, ray of stupidity, allip, various poisons, etc) will knock you out, no save, guaranteed. Anyone who attempts this, then, is playing with fire: they are greatly increasing their vulnerability in exchange for greater strengths. The proper response, then, is to warn them fairly, and exploit those vulnerabilities in an appropriate way until they realize their error.

Capping all ability scores simply means that there is absolutely no tradeoff possible: stat dumps become not risky, but pointless to the point of insanity. Even dropping the first-level feat is just a way of soft-banning it, not a reasonable tradeoff.

Aedilred
2014-05-03, 07:32 AM
Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones. Every class can do this to get hyper advantages.
Although I imagine a popular argument would be that the fighter needs every advantage he can get, up to and including hyper ones, in order to stay in touch with spellcasters.


Good. A disadvantage should actually be a disadvantage, not the sort of bs where a player gains a feat in exchange for -2 to a skill. I think that every player choice should have an associated cost.
Yeah, but there's a difference between making sure a disadvantage is actually a disadvantage, and making sure that a disadvantage is as punitive as possible with no appreciable trade-off. If somebody gambles away their paycheque in a game of poker, it's not necessary to steal their car as well just to make sure they notice.

Thinker
2014-05-03, 04:19 PM
Generally, I think this ignores the problem of ability damage/drain/penalties. If you have 1 Cha, 3 Int, and 4 Wis (necessary to get 18/18/18 with 32-point buy), you'll fail nearly all Will saves and a single spell or monster special ability hit from a variety of sources (ego whip, ray of stupidity, allip, various poisons, etc) will knock you out, no save, guaranteed. Anyone who attempts this, then, is playing with fire: they are greatly increasing their vulnerability in exchange for greater strengths. The proper response, then, is to warn them fairly, and exploit those vulnerabilities in an appropriate way until they realize their error.

Capping all ability scores simply means that there is absolutely no tradeoff possible: stat dumps become not risky, but pointless to the point of insanity. Even dropping the first-level feat is just a way of soft-banning it, not a reasonable tradeoff.
Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?


Although I imagine a popular argument would be that the fighter needs every advantage he can get, up to and including hyper ones, in order to stay in touch with spellcasters.
It applies for every class.



Yeah, but there's a difference between making sure a disadvantage is actually a disadvantage, and making sure that a disadvantage is as punitive as possible with no appreciable trade-off. If somebody gambles away their paycheque in a game of poker, it's not necessary to steal their car as well just to make sure they notice.

Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

Pex
2014-05-03, 04:41 PM
Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

I sure do dislike DMs who hate their players.

:smallsigh:

Aedilred
2014-05-03, 06:59 PM
Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?
Well, that's fair enough. But in that case, why not just say "you can lower attributes below the minimum if you like, but there's no trade-off", or even just "no lowering attributes below the minimum"? Your proposal gives them not only a substandard trade-off, but an attribute cap to boot, which apparently you consider "still kind of strong", although I'm not sure how, so there's a further penalty just for giggles.

That's not encouraging people to play for flavour over power. It's encouraging people to make the most of the RAW because apparently if they want to try anything outside it you'll come down on their character like a ton of bricks.

TuggyNE
2014-05-03, 07:20 PM
Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?

If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

In general, deliberately designing a potential choice of flavor to be as terribad as humanly possible is poor game design. Rather, choices that are pure flavor should have meaningful mechanics, but be as close to reasonably balanced as possible, so that a good range of concepts is possible without having to choose whether to value power or flavor more. Deliberately setting up that choice to be harsher than normal is pretty weird.


Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

I think we're done here. :smallsigh:

da_chicken
2014-05-04, 04:19 AM
If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

In general, deliberately designing a potential choice of flavor to be as terribad as humanly possible is poor game design.

In a general case, I'd agree with that, but there's a lot more going on than just that.

People keep talking about meaningful choices, but there's no (or almost no) meaningful difference between a Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Sorcerer having an Int of 9 vs an Int of 3. Is it a meaningful choice then to allow a player to choose a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? Just force them to start at 8 or your parties will consist of horribly deformed and severely mentally impaired individuals.

The idea of point buy is to make a distribution based on a fixed pool so that dice rolls don't benefit one player over another. If I elect to play a class with a larger number of attributes that don't affect play much, then I can choose to focus my points on a smaller number of attributes. That's already an advantage single attribute classes have with point buy. If I have a larger number of dump stats and can really dump them, then I can afford to completely burn them for even more points in my pool for useful attributes. Other classes with more attribute dependencies cannot do that. Since we already know that classes with multiple attributes are already hampered, giving single attribute classes even more advantage merely serves to further imbalance the power disparity of the party at the time of character creation. You're un-leveling an already rough playing field.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not on the Frank Castle train. But I do think that giving a player a benefit that is very likely to benefit him at the cost of a penalty which is trivial to ignore is not particularly meaningful, nor particularly interesting, nor particularly balanced, nor particularly fun. I mean, why not just play with Unearthed Arcana flaws then? Then every Fighter can be Inattentive, every Wizard a Feeble or Noncombatant, and every Cleric can be Shaky or Unreactive.

No, the idea of choice in game design doesn't just mean that the choice must be meaningful, it means the choice must not have a clear answer or it's not a choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 6 Cha, there is no way in hell I'm not adding to my hit point rolls and fort saves. I've already decided I'm not going to be making Diplomacy checks by not increasing my Cha. I've already made that choice, and an extra -1 to die rolls I already decided to fail isn't an interesting choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 4 Cha... well, that's a lot more severe. Cha 4 is a significantly lowered stat, even for a dump stat. You might run into a Ghost or get poisoned and get taken out. The fact that you *might* decide that it is still worth it or you might not means that it's interesting again.

Also, on this:


If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

Character generation is already massively arbitrary, and point buy is already entirely a metagame restriction.

TuggyNE
2014-05-04, 05:33 AM
At this point I think it's reasonable to mention my preferred solution for dump stats and point buy arbitrariness in one neat package, which as it happens is homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?296569-Organic-Point-Buy-a-new-idea-in-ability-score-generation-(3-x-PEACH)). (Shameless plug, but hey.)

Pex
2014-05-04, 03:22 PM
No, the idea of choice in game design doesn't just mean that the choice must be meaningful, it means the choice must not have a clear answer or it's not a choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 6 Cha, there is no way in hell I'm not adding to my hit point rolls and fort saves. I've already decided I'm not going to be making Diplomacy checks by not increasing my Cha. I've already made that choice, and an extra -1 to die rolls I already decided to fail isn't an interesting choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 4 Cha... well, that's a lot more severe. Cha 4 is a significantly lowered stat, even for a dump stat. You might run into a Ghost or get poisoned and get taken out. The fact that you *might* decide that it is still worth it or you might not means that it's interesting again.

Also, on this:



Point. It would be fair to require a minimum score. In Pathfinder that's 7 to get points. In D&D that's 8 by not putting points into it. The question is then how many points a player has to spend. Personal opinion 25 is needed for Pathfinder, 32 for 3E, for MAD classes to have a (subjective) decent array, though monk is still troubled but I'll concede that's a problem with monk not point buy. 20 is doable in Pathfinder precisely because you start at 10 with 0 points for a score and get more with an 8 or 7 and friendly racial bonuses. The "recommended" point buy for 4E, unlike the others', actually works given the 4E framework of all classes being DAD and better of two scores for saving throw defense modifiers.

What is not fair is to heap on extra negative stuff just because a player chose to have that 8 or 7 for extra points so that the player doesn't get away with something and have it "too easy".

Slipperychicken
2014-05-04, 04:58 PM
People keep talking about meaningful choices, but there's no (or almost no) meaningful difference between a Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Sorcerer having an Int of 9 vs an Int of 3. Is it a meaningful choice then to allow a player to choose a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? Just force them to start at 8 or your parties will consist of horribly deformed and severely mentally impaired individuals.


You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-05, 01:22 AM
You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

I haven't actually met any of these people... You must introduce me sometime XD

More seriously, the majority of players don't want to play the super naive/ weak willed character (Wis 3-6), the pathetic twig who can hardly stand (str 3-6), the guy who trips over his own feet (dex 3-6), the bumbling idiot (int 3-6) or the guy that everyone will hate because he can't words/ is ugly as sin (cha 3-6). And absolutely no one wants to play the guy made out of flash paper (con 3-6 oh my god you would die so fast). In a game where role playing is actually a factor, these scores would be terrible to have, and most people would not have fun playing them. However, I will admit that there are a few games where there isn't any roleplay (casters vs. everything being a really rather good example of that) or games where the numbers matter more than character personalty. Fine. Lowering stats should not be allowed in these games... But in a game where this isn't a factor, letting people choose these personalities/ flaws/ weaknesses shouldn't be discouraged either.

However, there should still be a limit to how many points you can take out of your stats... for example, let's say that you can subtract up to 3 points from any number of stats (just enough to get that pesky 15 up to a 16 in 3.5, but not enough to get a nat 19 in any score for a min-maxer), meaning that you can have 3 7's, or a 7 and a 6, or one 5. These aren't the worst penalties you could have to your stats, but they are penalties that will affect how your character acts, interacts or approaches a situation (Unless they're a wizard, then lolnope, just keep on keeping on you smug prick). Will players use it to their advantage? Yes. Is it necessarily a bad thing? No, not really (Unless you're talking late-mid to just late, llate (epic level) game, where that con/ primary casting attribute are just so very, very juicy and helpful...). Heck, I'd argue that in the early game, you pretty much need every advantage you can get! A barbarian or warblade can get 1-shot by an orc fighter with a greatsword at level 1 relatively easily (especially if the orc crits), And the rest of the party is just not going to stand up much better... But of course, this is just my opinion/ perspective.

Though I will add that I just wanted to ask a simple question... and suddenly, drama. The internet had not failed me. :smalltongue:

da_chicken
2014-05-05, 02:53 AM
You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

Which is perfectly fine if that's what the character concept is. If I were a DM and a player wanted to lower an ability score for no benefit then I'd certainly be alright with it, and I've done it before as a player, too. At that point you're choosing to have a low score, not trying to get stats beyond the normal budget. By the RAW, there's no other way to play a particularly stupid character under point buy without racial help.

I have a Warforged Barbarian in a campaign that got starting stats of Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16 (+2 to 18), Int 8, Wis 8 (-2 to 6), Cha 8 (-2 to 6). I play the character such that he misinterprets the meaning of phrases, makes poor decisions, fails to understand the limitations of humanoids, and suffers from terrible tunnel vision. During the last session, an NPC was discussing how he survived in a dungeon before we rescued him and said "I survived with naught but my razor wit!" I interrupted and said, "Why is your razor named Wit?" Later in the dungeon, we opened the door and found an empty room with a large urn in the middle. He walked right into the room and opened the jar. It was trapped by energy drain. Fortunately, Warforged are immune to energy drain. So now my character is carrying around a 250 lb metal urn that has a 9th level spell trap on it that doesn't affect him. Of course I don't think the character has made a single Will save yet. Amusingly, I don't think I've rolled over a natural 5 on any of them. I tanked my Will saves intentionally because my DM allowed me to take Lion Totem (pounce) and Whirling Frenzy... which is as disgusting as you think it is. Fortunately, he'll have Warforged Juggernaut 3 soon, but until then the DM has had great fun making me fail will saves. If the party's casters would read the spell description for protection from evil, they'd take less damage because of it. By the time I can get immunity to mind-affecting I'll need it since I won't be the combat monster anymore. And he is fully capable of dressing himself. His armor plating has the glamered property. He's attended multiple formal occasions looking like a gold statue.

Mastikator
2014-05-05, 04:18 AM
Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-05, 09:36 AM
Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

Wait.. they're different people? That sounds a bit heretical :smalltongue:

Knaight
2014-05-05, 10:02 AM
Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

It depends on the game. The classic GM role is that of the world arbitrator, rules arbitrator, mediator, etc. Those aren't inherently connected though, and there are games that split them up, or do things like have rules disputed generally settled by vote. Heck, there's even one game (Shock: Social Science Fiction) where the GM role is fairly close to that of the classic role, but who the GM is switches depending on what the party is doing, so you might have one GM for political machinations and another GM for space battles.

Pex
2014-05-05, 12:28 PM
My group runs several campaigns, and I have two characters with an 8 Intelligence - an oracle and a paladin, both human favored bonus into hit points. My paladin only gets 1 skill point per level. For him I don't play him as an idiot but he is a simpleton. We all joke he's dumber than a rock. When it comes to combat tactics and in pursuit of defeating Evil I don't play him dumb. 8 is not really idiotic. He is capable of learning and knows of what he has been trained. My oracle gets 4 skill points per level. For him I don't put any particular emphasis on his Intelligence. I don't come up with elaborate plans, but he is able to contribute ideas.

da_chicken
2014-05-05, 03:28 PM
Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

Well, there's "My DM says I can't because the rules say I can't" and "My DM says I can't because he doesn't want me to". The former allows you to challenge the rules and is only an implicit denial based on a potentially flawed interpretation of the rules. The latter is just "Not in this campaign".

Jay R
2014-05-06, 05:38 PM
I sure do dislike DMs who hate their players.

:smallsigh:

There is no logical path from "the players shouldn't have it too easy" to "The DM hates the players."

His approach is different from yours. That's all.

Aedilred
2014-05-06, 07:45 PM
There is no logical path from "the players shouldn't have it too easy" to "The DM hates the players."

His approach is different from yours. That's all.
"Everything should be as punitive as possible"

That leans more towards the "player hate" end of the spectrum for me, honestly.

Jay R
2014-05-07, 09:47 AM
"Everything should be as punitive as possible"

That leans more towards the "player hate" end of the spectrum for me, honestly.

I prefer to interpret without hate when possible. This sounds more like the belief that difficult challenges are fun.

No DM ever hates the players. Running a game is too much work for people you hate. Some DMs think that they are playing a game against the players, and are only trying to win by beating them, but that's not hate; you don't play games with people you hate.

Besides, you quoted only part of it. The complete paragraph was "Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices." This isn't hate; it's trying to produce the best possible game.

In any event, until I see him running a game, I can't know what "as punitive as possible" means to him. He specifically said that it was to keep the game from being too easy. To assume that means he hates them, instead of wanting them to enjoy a challenge is not warranted.

Disagree with him all you like. But that doesn't require inventing emotions for him.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-07, 11:09 AM
Well, you can hate on someone without actually hating them... and inventing a system that's as punitive as possible and that has no advantages to it instead of just telling the players no is sort of hating on players... :smalltongue:

LibraryOgre
2014-05-07, 03:47 PM
Well, you can hate on someone without actually hating them... and inventing a system that's as punitive as possible and that has no advantages to it instead of just telling the players no is sort of hating on players... :smalltongue:

On the other hand, the players are under no obligation to use that system. They're seeking an advantage by lowering stats... something not accounted for in the rules (for the most part). The GM is saying "Ok, you can lower stats, but it will be with a severe disadvantage."

Gnomes2169
2014-05-07, 07:48 PM
On the other hand, the players are under no obligation to use that system. They're seeking an advantage by lowering stats... something not accounted for in the rules (for the most part). The GM is saying "Ok, you can lower stats, but it will be with a severe disadvantage."

True, but if you have a cake and want options besides just having a cake, and the person giving you the cake says sure and gives you the option to be bitten by a rattle snake a few times instead of having cake... is that really an option? :smalltongue:

No one would take the bites, because the option is so poor that no sane person would want it. Typically if you're going to give options, you want to give things that people will actually use (even if you're a DM, oddly enough :smalltongue:), so in the aforementioned example, we'll change getting bitten by a rattlesnake to eating a cookie. So say the DM allows it, but for the cost of 2 kill points each level up, or your level 1 feat, but leaves everything else untouched. Would there be an actual cost to lowering base stats? Yes. Very yes. But it opens up an option you wouldn't have before without giving you a horrible conversion rate AND lowering your max stats AND removing your level 1 feat (which is just character suicide at that point). In other words, it would be an actual option instead of the DM basically wasting your time telling you you can be bitten by rattle snakes or just follow RAW.

So really, it's more the debate between giving players options (Cake vs. cookies) and giving them "options" (Cake vs Rattlesnakes) that we're talking about here. People that tend to be more player minded would see something like this as player hate because it's basically a sarcastic, "Fine, here's your option. You're not taking it? Good." From the DM... while most DMs would say, "What did your players do for you to give them a suicide template?" It's not necessarily player hate, but it's also not a DM being fair or open minded.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-07, 08:09 PM
I don't see how it's not fair, if everyone is playing by the same rules. The player is looking for an advantage; the DM is under no obligation to offer an advantage just because the player wants it, especially when everyone else is playing by the rules.

Pex
2014-05-07, 09:13 PM
I don't see how it's not fair, if everyone is playing by the same rules. The player is looking for an advantage; the DM is under no obligation to offer an advantage just because the player wants it, especially when everyone else is playing by the rules.

If everyone is playing by the same rules then everyone has the option to lower an ability score beyond the normal, not just one player. Deeming a player looking for an advantage as something to be punished is precisely DM hating his players thinking. Of course a player wants his character to be good at something. That's the whole point and not a crime against gamedom.

A DM could say no, just stick with RAW if he doesn't want to risk unforeseen problems, 7 in Pathfinder for 4 points, 8 in D&D for no points added. If the DM will allow a lower score, mitigate it, don't metaphorically slap the player upside the head. Have a minimum low score, say 6, giving 6 points for Pathfinder, 2 for D&D. Have the dumped stat matter in game. If the stereotypical Charisma, NPCs aren't automatically hostile. Rather, NPCs ignore the character, patronize him, charge a higher price than normal when they can get away with it. If Intelligence, when the party needs to determine a plan of action, enforce the player may not contribute ideas to reflect his character's inability to do so. Certain assumptions of in character knowledge would not apply for that character. If strength, be absolutely strict on encumbrance even when hand waving the rest of the party. The player must account and keep track of weight of items on his character sheet.

Work with the player, not against him.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-07, 09:57 PM
If everyone is playing by the same rules then everyone has the option to lower an ability score beyond the normal, not just one player. Deeming a player looking for an advantage as something to be punished is precisely DM hating his players thinking. Of course a player wants his character to be good at something. That's the whole point and not a crime against gamedom.

But the player *is* looking for an advantage outside the rules; he wants the rules to change because he wants something. The GM is under no obligation to cater to that.

TuggyNE
2014-05-07, 10:59 PM
But the player *is* looking for an advantage outside the rules; he wants the rules to change because he wants something. The GM is under no obligation to cater to that.

Well, no, they aren't, but in that case it is sufficient to simply not change the rules. Pretending to cater to it — by changing the rules but doing so in a way that provides no real advantage, not even a situational or risky one — seems strongly passive-aggressive, and also somewhat dishonest. "Sure you can have this nice houserule except that I'm going to make it worse than useless so you know not to ask me for anything again. Also maybe your character will be weaker, which is great, because you shouldn't have asked to break the rules like that in the first place!" :smallannoyed:

If a request is unbalanced, the DM should tell the players so, rather than inserting some elaborate obfuscation to punish them for trying it: assuming good faith and acting in it.

Put another way, a player should be free to ask for potential advantages (as long as they are vaguely reasonable) secure in the knowledge that whether their request is granted or not, their character will at least not be worse off than before.

Kaun
2014-05-07, 11:22 PM
If a request is unbalanced, the DM should tell the players so, rather than inserting some elaborate obfuscation to punish them for trying it: assuming good faith and acting in it.

Its only a punishment if the GM forces it upon the player.

If the player asks for something outside the rules. The GM offers an option and explains the house rule. The player decided's if he wants to make use of the house rule or not. The player can decide they do not like the house rule as it stands and can request further alterations. The GM can alter the rule again or leave the rule as is.

There is no punishment, the player now has a choice which they can weigh up and freely make a decision on one way or another.

It would be a punishment if the player asked "hey GM i want to lower my STR below 8 so i can raise my INT" and the GM responds with "Ok your INT is one point higher but your STR is lowered to 3!"

TuggyNE
2014-05-08, 12:45 AM
Its only a punishment if the GM forces it upon the player.

In this case, they have a choice between a punishment or staying with the status quo, but the punishment is presented as though it were a genuine choice (one which, as most choices in a game like 3.x, might be better in some circumstances), and any player who doesn't realize this will be worse off.

That's why I called it passive-aggressive, because it's essentially "stop asking for things because the changes I make in response will be unhelpful to you".

Kaun
2014-05-08, 12:59 AM
In this case, they have a choice between a punishment or staying with the status quo, but the punishment is presented as though it were a genuine choice (one which, as most choices in a game like 3.x, might be better in some circumstances), and any player who doesn't realize this will be worse off.

That's why I called it passive-aggressive, because it's essentially "stop asking for things because the changes I make in response will be unhelpful to you".

Correct me if i'm wrong but the punishment we are referring to is the 2:1 ratio suggested earlier?

Whether or not that is a punishment is a matter of personal opinion. Saying that its the GM being passive-aggressive seems like a rather knee jerk response, especially since its a very common approach.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-08, 01:22 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong but the punishment we are referring to is the 2:1 ratio suggested earlier?

Whether or not that is a punishment is a matter of personal opinion. Saying that its the GM being passive-aggressive seems like a rather knee jerk response, especially since its a very common approach.

It's the 2:1 ration + the lowering of stat caps by the number of points you lower your lowest stat to (So if you have a 4, your highest stat is 14) + Loss of your level 1 feat. It's... a bit harsh in the extreme >.>

Thinker
2014-05-08, 02:20 AM
Perhaps my suggestion was a bit heavy-handed. It's been a few years since I've played 3.5e and most of my memories of the system are of terrible balance among classes, few real choices within various classes, noob traps aplenty, and a disproportionate emphasis on ability scores considering what they actually do. I obviously don't hate the players, but I do think that games where there is a factually correct answer are poorly designed. In character creation, any response that optimizes a character is the correct one. My rule suggestion was to make it more of a choice than an obvious benefit to the character. There is no doubt that a fighter with high strength taking Weapon Finesse has made a poor decision or that a wizard with 18 int and 8 strength has made a good one.

Here's a new suggestion that might fit into a game a bit better:

Everyone has 28-point pool of points to spend raising abilities. This is referred to as the ability pool. Ability scores begin at 8 and may be raised by spending points from the ability pool. Abilities may be raised no higher than 18 before applying racial bonuses or penalties. Spending an ability point costs 1 point to raise it from 8 to 9 up to 14; 2 points to raise it from 14 to 15 or 15 to 16; 3 points to raise it from 16 to 17 or 17 to 18. A chart would be handy so here you go:



Ability
Point Cost


8
0


9
1


10
2


11
3


12
4


13
5


14
6


15
8


16
10


17
13


18
16




That seems like it's what I've used in the past, though I don't recall for sure. Now, if players want to play a character with abnormally low stats or want a few extra points to raise a primary stat higher, there should be an outlet for that. After all, lots of stories involve heroes overcoming adversity and physical or mental flaws to achieve greatness. It is a common fantasy and a fantasy RPG should bear that out. So, a house rule like this one passes the sniff test: there's a purpose for fulfilling characters that is not adequately covered by the rules. Unfortunately, many times a disability is not a real hindrance to the character - who cares if the cleric has 4 dexterity if he's wandering around in heavy armor and never tries to be stealthy anyway? So, we introduce character flaws:

Characters may take flaws to gain 3 additional points to add to their ability pool. These flaws must be taken during character creation. No ability may be reduced below 3 after accounting for racial bonuses and penalties. These flaws are intrinsic to the characters and cannot normally be removed through spells or special abilities, though the GM may make exceptions on a character-by-character basis.

Aloof
Flaw: Wisdom and Intelligence
Your character displays an astonishing lack of awareness about the world. Your character casts one fewer spell per day compared to normal. Additionally, your character suffers a -2 penalty to all attack bonuses and a -4 penalty to the following skills: listen, search, sense motive, spot. Your character's wisdom and intelligence are each reduced by 2.

Amputee - Arm
Flaw: Strength and Dexterity
Your character is missing an arm. Your character may not wield two-handed weapons or carry any weapons or objects in her off-hand (unless she finds some way to add a new arm). Additionally, your character takes a -6 penalty to the following skills: balance, climb, and tumble. Your character's strength and dexterity are each reduced by 2.

Amputee - Leg
Flaw: Strength and Dexterity
Your character is missing a leg. It is assumed that he is using a prosthetic to move around. Your character may not run or charge. Additionally, your character takes a -6 penalty to the following skills: balance, climb, jump, ride, and tumble. Your character's strength and dexterity are each reduced by 2.

Anemic
Flaw: Constitution
Your character lacks energy and finds it difficult to carry on tasks for long periods of time. Your character may only undertake strenuous activity normally for 3 rounds plus your constitution modifier (after all bonuses and penalties). At the end of this time, your character becomes fatigued (-2 penalty to Strength, -2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) until she takes a break for five minutes to catch her breath. Strenuous activity includes combat, running, and the skill climb, jump, swim, and tumble. Your character's constitution score is reduced by 3.

Imbecile
Flaw: Intelligence
Your character is not very bright, finding it difficult to grasp simple concepts or to learn new things. Your character gains 1 less skill point per level and 4 less skill points at level 1. Additionally, all spells cast by this character are cast at -1 caster level. Your character's intelligence is reduced by 3.

Poor Resolve
Flaw: Wisdom
Your character is weak-willed and is easily pushed around. Your character automatically fails any checks to resist the intimidate skill. Additionally, whenever your character rolls for a Will Save, roll the die twice and take the worst result. Your character's wisdom is reduced by 3.

Shaky
Flaw: Dexterity
Your character's hands are unsteady and his whole body is prone to fits of shaking on occasion. Your character has a -4 penalty with all ranged weapons and any other weapons that use dexterity to determine accuracy and takes a -6 penalty when using the following skills: balance, climb, disable device, escape artist, open lock, and sleight of hand. Your character's dexterity is reduced by 3.

Weak
Flaw: Strength
Your character has noticeable difficulty lifting objects or carrying things around. Your character's carrying capacity is reduced by 10%. Additionally, your character may not wield two-handed weapons. Finally, your character takes a -2 penalty to all attacks and a -4 penalty to all attacks when wielding a weapon or object in her offhand (including shields) and a -6 penalty to the skills climb, jump, and swim. Your character's strength is reduced by 3.


I can come up with more later if there's any interest.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-08, 02:54 AM
Hmmmm, the flaws are rather interesting as far as the idea goes... though some of them (like poor resolve) would be worth the 3 points without the relatively large -3 attribute penalty associated with it (Though adding in always being shaken by fear effects would be good and thematic). Perhaps this one could be a -2 instead, since taking the worst will save is really... really deadly for most characters?

On a different line of thought, one would think that being aloof would be a penalty to wisdom and charisma, rather than intelligence, since people that are aloof tend to not be the most charismatic... :smalltongue:

For Amputee, I would say that instead of balance, make it a -6 to grapple and swim, since you're not going to be as good at either of those, and people that have their arms amputated can compensate for the balance shift eventually.

Anemic is great, but that blow to con makes me cringe so much XD Con is oh so very important for everyone...

Imbecilic is very interesting, and spawns the idea of Ignoramous (-4 on all knowledge checks and -6 to sense motive, int focused).

Shaky is actually the least penalizing of them for most character... sure a -4 on your ranged touch attacks sucks for most wizards/ sorcs/ psions, but that's fixable by truestrike and the like. Most of those skills are really rogue/bard-centric, and they're not going to be taking a dex penalty now are they...? :smalltongue: Maybe add a -2 ref save penalty, remove some of the rogue/ bard-only penalties for skills (escape artist in particular, and maybe climb as well) and change it to a -2 dex penalty instead of -3.

Weak makes a wizard want a mule even more to carry their stuff XD A penalty to grapple/ bull rush checks wouldn't be out of order here, likely a -4 to both. That said you should still be able to wield two-handed weapons (after all, quarter staves are two handed :smalltongue:), and loss of attack bonus while holding two weapons/ a sword and shield seems more like being nonathletic rather than weak.

Jay R
2014-05-08, 08:04 AM
True, but if you have a cake and want options besides just having a cake, and the person giving you the cake says sure and gives you the option to be bitten by a rattle snake a few times instead of having cake... is that really an option? :smalltongue:

Agreed. But don't forget that this is your scenario, not supported by anything anybody else said.


Well, no, they aren't, but in that case it is sufficient to simply not change the rules. Pretending to cater to it — by changing the rules but doing so in a way that provides no real advantage, not even a situational or risky one — seems strongly passive-aggressive, and also somewhat dishonest. "Sure you can have this nice houserule except that I'm going to make it worse than useless so you know not to ask me for anything again. Also maybe your character will be weaker, which is great, because you shouldn't have asked to break the rules like that in the first place!" :smallannoyed:

The words in quotes are not a quotation. This is your phrasing, not supported by anything anybody else said.


If a request is unbalanced, the DM should tell the players so, rather than inserting some elaborate obfuscation to punish them for trying it: assuming good faith and acting in it.

Elaborate obfuscation? I don't see any evidence for that. The DM might very bluntly say that I can have X but it will cost me Y. I've had DMs do this. Sometimes I accept; sometimes I don't. But if I can choose between X+Y or not X+Y, my options have not shrunk.

We should assume as much good faith on the part of the hypothetical DM as you think he should assume in the players.


Put another way, a player should be free to ask for potential advantages (as long as they are vaguely reasonable) secure in the knowledge that whether their request is granted or not, their character will at least not be worse off than before.

Which is what is happening. I can have the basic character, by the rules. If I want something the DM believes is an unfair advantage, he will pair it with what he sees as an equal disadvantage. The DM could be wrong about how valuable what I'm asking for is, and give a penalty I think is too heavy, in which case I remain free to not accept the coupled advantage/disadvantage, just as I might not invite a couple to the game if I like playing with one of them but the other is no fun.

Note that there is not, now or ever, an assurance that the DM and I will agree on how valuable X is or how punitive Y is, so he may make me an offer I think is a net loss. In that case, I refuse it, but I haven't been hurt thereby.

[In fact, I may still accept. It isn't true that I'm only looking for more power. I once wrote up a character in which I described one disadvantage as "not required by the rules, so this is a restriction I am putting on him myself." I once took a particular Disadvantage in Champions when I couldn't get a point gain for it, just because it was true to the character.]

I suspect that we don't disagree on how a DM should act, but only on what I see as an unfair interpretation of something somebody said in this thread yesterday.

Thinker
2014-05-08, 10:39 AM
Hmmmm, the flaws are rather interesting as far as the idea goes... though some of them (like poor resolve) would be worth the 3 points without the relatively large -3 attribute penalty associated with it (Though adding in always being shaken by fear effects would be good and thematic). Perhaps this one could be a -2 instead, since taking the worst will save is really... really deadly for most characters?

On a different line of thought, one would think that being aloof would be a penalty to wisdom and charisma, rather than intelligence, since people that are aloof tend to not be the most charismatic... :smalltongue:

For Amputee, I would say that instead of balance, make it a -6 to grapple and swim, since you're not going to be as good at either of those, and people that have their arms amputated can compensate for the balance shift eventually.

Anemic is great, but that blow to con makes me cringe so much XD Con is oh so very important for everyone...

Imbecilic is very interesting, and spawns the idea of Ignoramous (-4 on all knowledge checks and -6 to sense motive, int focused).

Shaky is actually the least penalizing of them for most character... sure a -4 on your ranged touch attacks sucks for most wizards/ sorcs/ psions, but that's fixable by truestrike and the like. Most of those skills are really rogue/bard-centric, and they're not going to be taking a dex penalty now are they...? :smalltongue: Maybe add a -2 ref save penalty, remove some of the rogue/ bard-only penalties for skills (escape artist in particular, and maybe climb as well) and change it to a -2 dex penalty instead of -3.

Weak makes a wizard want a mule even more to carry their stuff XD A penalty to grapple/ bull rush checks wouldn't be out of order here, likely a -4 to both. That said you should still be able to wield two-handed weapons (after all, quarter staves are two handed :smalltongue:), and loss of attack bonus while holding two weapons/ a sword and shield seems more like being nonathletic rather than weak.

Sure. That makes sense. Anything new needs to be worked on. I won't be using it for my own games so I trust if anyone does, they would tailor it for themselves.

Gnomes2169
2014-05-08, 10:49 AM
Agreed. But don't forget that this is your scenario, not supported by anything anybody else said.

I'm not giving a scenario, what you quoted was alliterative language that attempted to paint picture in a (colorful) way. In other words, the cake was the point buy system as it works by RAW, it's pretty good, maybe not the best but not 100% terrible either. You don't need to give options beside it, but sometimes people like options. As for the rattlesnakes, I was using basic satire to state that "lowering your stat caps and losing your level 1 feat for basically nothing in return (might as well) be the same thing as throwing your character into a pit teaming with rattlesnakes instead of having cake. Not a good idea and basic character suicide." In other words, it was a simple metaphor (as was clearly demonstrated in the post if you read it completely), not an actual response to what someone said. :smalltongue:

And yes, in case you missed it again, my point was that if a DM says he's giving you an option, that he/ she should actually give you an option. If you will note, I did not ask for a homebrew system design, I was just asking if it could be done, so the volunteered system was given freely, without actual player asking for it... meaning that me calling it "overly harsh" and pointing out why it was unfair and not a real option is a critique of an imbalanced system that might be used in the future. I'm not saying "Oh boo hoo, my DM made a system that no one will use," I'm trying to warn a DM that the system he could potentially implement will not see use because of the reasons listed before.

And Mark? This note is for you too, since you seem to be treating me like I'm a spurned player instead of someone who asked a question and accepted the answer already. I am merely discussing potential homebrewed systems and trying to give them the best critique that I can. So the constant snarky attitude of "Well the DM doesn't have to give you options, so you should stop complaining?" It's really... really not necessary here. A system was already offered. Freely. He also did not ask us to reserve judgement of it, and so judgement was given. Now then, if I missed the problem, please, explain it to me.


Sure. That makes sense. Anything new needs to be worked on. I won't be using it for my own games so I trust if anyone does, they would tailor it for themselves.

Fair enough, I suppose... and I'll admit that I liked the idea a bit more than mot others suggested here, if only because it seemed more thematic and unique than "numbers go up, numbers go down" :smallbiggrin:

Pex
2014-05-08, 12:48 PM
Well, no, they aren't, but in that case it is sufficient to simply not change the rules. Pretending to cater to it — by changing the rules but doing so in a way that provides no real advantage, not even a situational or risky one — seems strongly passive-aggressive, and also somewhat dishonest. "Sure you can have this nice houserule except that I'm going to make it worse than useless so you know not to ask me for anything again. Also maybe your character will be weaker, which is great, because you shouldn't have asked to break the rules like that in the first place!" :smallannoyed:

If a request is unbalanced, the DM should tell the players so, rather than inserting some elaborate obfuscation to punish them for trying it: assuming good faith and acting in it.

Put another way, a player should be free to ask for potential advantages (as long as they are vaguely reasonable) secure in the knowledge that whether their request is granted or not, their character will at least not be worse off than before.

Exactly. If the DM wants to say no to a request, just say no, not yes and make the player's character wish he was never born.

On another thought, if only one player is making this request, say no or work with him to keep everything sane. If all or most of your players are making this request, perhaps you should instead raise the point buy value. Granted, there has to be some max point buy value where the DM says no more. Anything above the highest published value is a reasonable place. However, if you are insisting on 25 points for D&D or 15 for Pathfinder and players are wanting to eke points with a 6 score, the better solution could just as well be go to 32 points for D&D, 25 for Pathfinder. 28/20 respectively possible instead.

TuggyNE
2014-05-08, 08:50 PM
The words in quotes are not a quotation. This is your phrasing, not supported by anything anybody else said.

They are a paraphrase of the actual effect of at least one suggestion, followed by a description of what a player might reasonably feel like the DM is saying. Hopefully no one in this thread actually has that intention.


Elaborate obfuscation? I don't see any evidence for that. The DM might very bluntly say that I can have X but it will cost me Y. I've had DMs do this. Sometimes I accept; sometimes I don't. But if I can choose between X+Y or not X+Y, my options have not shrunk.

The obfuscation is in the complicated way in which the tradeoffs are made: it requires a certain mental calculus to determine what, exactly, the drawbacks are worth. (It is complicated enough that the original suggester arguably was not aware of the true extent of it. Therefore, some players would undoubtedly also be confused by this.)

Basically, if you give an "option" that is actually, on balance, considerably worse than the original in all cases, then the lack of any theoretical reduction in options is offset by the non-zero chance someone will unwisely choose the bad option, which acts as a negative option. More simply, "cake or rattlesnakes" is worse than "cake", even if it's clearly presented, because it is never better and opens up new and exciting opportunities to be a good deal worse.


We should assume as much good faith on the part of the hypothetical DM as you think he should assume in the players.

Yes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AAAGF). However, if the DM persists in offering absurd tradeoffs without significantly changing their extent, then that assumption begins to run out of steam. (Or, similarly, if a player continues to ask for crazy stuff without really dropping down to a more sensible position, good faith on that end also runs dry.)


I suspect that we don't disagree on how a DM should act

Probably, or at least not very substantially. :smallwink:

Jay R
2014-05-08, 11:24 PM
They are a paraphrase of the actual effect of at least one suggestion, followed by a description of what a player might reasonably feel like the DM is saying. Hopefully no one in this thread actually has that intention.

They are a very negative interpretation of a hypothetical effect, followed by a description of what a judgmental player might unreasonably pretend the DM is saying, which in fact the DM did not say.

Inventing that negative an interpretation "seems strongly passive-aggressive, and also somewhat dishonest."

Really, guys, can we give a generous interpretation in good faith once?

TuggyNE
2014-05-09, 02:04 AM
They are a very negative interpretation of a hypothetical effect, followed by a description of what a judgmental player might unreasonably pretend the DM is saying, which in fact the DM did not say.

Not a hypothetical effect, but the actual suggestion by Thinker earlier, which layers three separate significant disadvantages onto the option to lower stats below 8. One of these disadvantages removes the main point of this option, and the others penalize it into the ground. (If your stat cap is now 16 for all abilities, what good is an extra two points going to do you, since it can only bump a single ability from 15 to 16?)

And, like I said, the DM may or may not mean what it sounds like. But that's one of the two main possible impressions given, and, if it is given often enough, it is increasingly likely to be quite correct. Such is the way of human interaction.

The alternative impression, of course, is "I am a little shaky on rules interactions and implications so can't figure out a good balance on this thing you asked for", which is not terribly positive either.

Thinker
2014-05-09, 04:53 AM
Not a hypothetical effect, but the actual suggestion by Thinker earlier, which layers three separate significant disadvantages onto the option to lower stats below 8. One of these disadvantages removes the main point of this option, and the others penalize it into the ground. (If your stat cap is now 16 for all abilities, what good is an extra two points going to do you, since it can only bump a single ability from 15 to 16?)

And, like I said, the DM may or may not mean what it sounds like. But that's one of the two main possible impressions given, and, if it is given often enough, it is increasingly likely to be quite correct. Such is the way of human interaction.

The alternative impression, of course, is "I am a little shaky on rules interactions and implications so can't figure out a good balance on this thing you asked for", which is not terribly positive either.

It's cool. I'll just avoid threads where I might accidentally give an opinion.

TuggyNE
2014-05-09, 06:21 AM
It's cool. I'll just avoid threads where I might accidentally give an opinion.

Hey now. I wasn't trying to say "don't give your opinion", and if that's how I came across then I do apologize for being a jerk. I just think your suggestion was a lot harsher than you intended it.

Thinker
2014-05-09, 06:58 AM
Hey now. I wasn't trying to say "don't give your opinion", and if that's how I came across then I do apologize for being a jerk. I just think your suggestion was a lot harsher than you intended it.

It's talking with text. No tone, no inflection. No worries.