Dice Rolls vs Point Buy

[Vhaidara]

So, I was applying for a low magic campaign a while ago, and the GM and I got into a disagreement when I requested a point buy after rolling a statblock of 13, 14, 11, 10, 8, 8. The GM claimed that point buys hurt non-casters by comparison to dice rolls, while I hold the opinion that point buys are better, since a character with crappy ability scores is going to be overshadowed regularly by someone with better stats, especially in a low magic setting where increasing stats is difficult. Meanwhile, casters only need 1 high stat (casting stat), 1 medium stat (Con for HP), and can live with 8s in other stats (not ideal, of course, but not fatal)

What is the opinion of the Playground on this?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally, I favor point-buy because, especially at low levels, it equalizes power. You won't get a situation where the bard is a better archer than the ranger because of dice luck*. The counterargument is that PB characters tend to have very similar abilities. And point buy can be wonky, as your DM is pointing out. If you roll well, you can pull off a severely MAD class or build, which usually isn't possible under PB. Meanwhile, the wizard can always have his 18 Int under PB, while rolling might stick him with a lower number.




*The bard may be a better archer for mechanical, magic-related reasons, but that's besides the point.

[squiggit]

The argument goes either way. Point buy helps casters because they can guarantee a good casting stat, but rolling is great for casters too because they only need one good roll to be functional, whereas damn near every martial needs three or four or even five stats to be reasonably high. Generally I think PB wins that argument though because of how rolling disproportionately punishes certain classes and doesn't really effect a mage that much unless the rolls are astoundingly bad (and most roll systems have some security in place to avoid terrible rolls).

My personally preference is high point buy, because I'm not a fan of RNG and higher PB values lets MAD classes get more of the love they need. So I generally pick the higher end PB options in a game (25 in pathfinder, 32 or 36 in 3.5, etc).

[Malak'ai]

Well that stat line gets an auto re-roll due to the overall bonus being less than +3 (by my reading of the PHB at least).

As to whether I prefer PB to Rolled Stats, it all depends on what I'm going for. Generally when I DM I have the players roll, but offer a PB as backup just incase.

[Vhaidara]

You see, I have the counter argument that a caster can work better with bad rolls than a mundane. Take the statblock I presented, which I think we can all agree is pretty garbage (16 point buy)
Mundane has a 14 and a 13 to work with, and needs to have 2 negative stats. One goes to Cha, and then he has to choose either penalty to Will or penalty to skill points. Meanwhile, he can get a slightly above average Str and some more HP.

Caster, meanwhile, puts the 14 in his casting stat, and will get it up to 19 with relative ease. He pus the 13 in his Con for HP or Dex for AC. 8s go to Str and Cha, 10s go to Wis and the other of Dex/Con.

EDIT: Rerolls go if you have no scores above 13 (I have a 14) or if the total is +0 or less (I have +1).

[eggynack]

Rolling is great for casters too because they only need one good roll to be functional.
Zero stats, really. There is no rolled stat distribution, meaning anything that can't be rerolled, that doesn't reasonably ensure perfect casting across all levels. Even all 10's and 11's means perfect access to spells at all levels apart from three, as long as you can ensure reasonable access to items that provide bonuses to ability scores, and you necessarily start with at least one 13.

Well that stat line gets an auto re-roll due to the overall bonus being less than +3 (by my reading of the PHB at least).

The book says a total modifier of +0 is necessary to justify a reroll, and his is +1. Thus, no reroll. I can't see a way to read it the way you're saying.

[Jeff the Green]

The worst part about low pointbuy/rolling is that it forces casters to use no-save spells, which tend to be battlefield control and buffs: the strongest things they can do. So there's no real ability to tone it down and use mostly single-target debuffs or non-orb blasting. Yeah, the lack of bonus spells hurts, but that's made up for by Focused Specialist—and since you won't be casting spells with saves, banning Echantment, Necromancy, and Evocation is hardly painful.

[Suichimo]

I convinced my DM in a PbP game to let the four of us roll a single set of stats. We totaled all four sets up and took the highest value among them, 76 in our case. From there, all of our stats were set at 8, using 48 points from our pool, and we used the remaining 28 points to buy up our stats 1:1.

[Chronos]

Which is better depends on what rolling system and what point buy value you're using. The standard 4d6 drop lowest, repeat 6 times is approximately equivalent to the Elite Array or 25 point buy. If you use a more generous rolling method or a more generous point buy, that becomes better.

More to the point, though, the time to choose which you're using is before you roll. If you like to take risks, then sure, roll your stats... but if you happen to get a bad roll, don't complain, because you made that choice. If you don't want to take the risk, then ask for point buy in the first place. You don't get to take the chance of good rolls but forgo the chance of bad rolls.

[Vhaidara]

Quick note: While typing this, I remembered that it was a 12, not a 13.


More to the point, though, the time to choose which you're using is before you roll. If you like to take risks, then sure, roll your stats... but if you happen to get a bad roll, don't complain, because you made that choice. If you don't want to take the risk, then ask for point buy in the first place. You don't get to take the chance of good rolls but forgo the chance of bad rolls.

You see, I disagree with this. I view the point buy as establishing a minimum level of power. If you roll above it, good for you, but a stat block like the one I got essentially blocked me from the campaign, which is a stupid reason to not be able to play.

I could have built a crappy charger with a barbarian base, but I've built good chargers. Why would I want to build one that has a 14 Strength, especially when there is going to be at least 1 more charger in this low magic campaign who will have better stats than me. Also, I really don't enjoy building chargers.

The character I'd wanted to build was a tactical fighter, a battlefield controller. However, that would have forced me to put my 14 into Int in order to qualify for Combat Expertise into the Improved set of feats. That left a 12 for Str and a 10 for Dex, so I don't even get Combat Reflexes for AoO and my checks for combat maneuvers are crap.

Meanwhile, someone else has rolled two 18s, a 16, a 15, a 14, and a 13. They will do something different from me, and still do my thing better than me

[Marlwyn]

I've played both rolls and point buys a few times.. I think I prefer the point buy. I agree with the comment above about power equalization. I don't like to see players get continually overshadowed. The point to me is to have a good time- for everyone to have a good time. If a player is going to spend a campaign (average lifespan of campaigns I've played or DM'd, are about 1 year...) always playing second fiddle to the rest of the party due to 1 really bad set of rolls, chances are they're not going to have as good of a time as they could. A point buy system just seems to put the party on the same level to begin with, and that's one less concern about balance among players. Just my two bits.

[SciChronic]

tier 1 and 2 casters can get away with some pretty bad stat rolls. last summer there was a thread here that showed a druid would do fine even if it's stats were all 10's -which is low enough to allow a reroll- since all he would have to do would be pump wis through items and levels, while getting hp/survival through wildshape. any martial class on the other hand would be hard pressed to survive/be useful even in encounters 1-3 levels below them. this means that rolls favor casters more than martial classes. point buy on the otherhand, while it makes casters better, it also makes martial classes much stronger.

I favor point-buy not only because of this, but when a player at the table end up with terrible rolls, its really hard for them to enjoy playing when they contribute nothing to the party. If your DM is really worried about casters outshining martials in pointbuy, give the martial classes a 32 and the casters a 24 or 28.

[eggynack]

tier 1 and 2 casters can get away with some pretty bad stat rolls. last summer there was a thread here that showed a druid would do fine even if it's stats were all 10's -which is low enough to allow a reroll- since all he would have to do would be pump wis through items and levels, while getting hp/survival through wildshape.
You're missing one of the best parts of that analysis, which is the animal companion. In a high stat game, at really early levels, the animal companion is basically a fighter. In a low stat game, at really early levels, the animal companion is a fighter of the exact same proficiency level as the one in the high stat game, except now everyone else presumably sucks. Incidentally, you do need to start with an 11 to hit the point where you only miss one level. Then again, even in an all 8's game, you can pop on dragonborn anthropomorphic bat, and there ya go, all the stats.

[Cowardly Griffo]

Unless you're playing a game where random generation is part of the gimmick (Maid, ICONS, Gamma World, etc.), point-buys all the way. Otherwise, seriously, you get that one person who rolls stupidly high or stupidly low and it's not really fun. Let's at least try to keep the characters on the same level in some respects, obligatory dead-horse balance discussions notwithstanding.

That said, I agree with Chronos. Pick one or pick the other, and if you pick the one that has risk involved I think you should suck it up instead of asking the GM to change the rules for you if it goes poorly.

I can see your argument to the contrary, but I don't agree with it. A 'minimum level of power' as a justification for taking point-buys after the fact, to me, is really just flatly saying 'I'm okay with power inequality so long as it's in my favor.' I've seen this happen in a couple of my recent games, and it just really bugs me.

[VoxRationis]

I think you all are missing something: The randomness of the classic character generation process introduces a desirable kind of variety. It makes for memorable characters, whether they have high scores, like the fighter with an unusually good Intelligence score after filling all the "core" requirements of a melee combatant, or low scores, such as a spellcaster with a 5 Constitution who needs to constantly avoid any kind of damage. It also can prevent sameness among characters going for a similar play-style: if you aren't operating with the exact same available resources as your last druid, you end up creating mechanically different characters. This in particular becomes important if the "anything in a book" style of equipment purchase and non-core access is being used.

[squiggit]

I think you all are missing something: The randomness of the classic character generation process introduces a desirable kind of variety. It makes for memorable characters, whether they have high scores, like the fighter with an unusually good Intelligence score after filling all the "core" requirements of a melee combatant, or low scores, such as a spellcaster with a 5 Constitution who needs to constantly avoid any kind of damage. It also can prevent sameness among characters going for a similar play-style: if you aren't operating with the exact same available resources as your last druid, you end up creating mechanically different characters. This in particular becomes important if the "anything in a book" style of equipment purchase and non-core access is being used.

My experience has been the exact opposite, with the most common outcome being a player being unable to play what they intended to because their dice didn't line up properly. Or, again, doing the exact opposite of "opening up new styles" by forcing a player to pick optimal choices because suboptimal choices aren't going to be feasible.

I mean, your low-con spellcaster is a perfect example of that. Low con means you can't pull off "fun" or "different" shenanigans with the character and you're best off playing a traditional backline godcaster. Which is the exact opposite of creating variety (though frankly you shouldn't need quirky rolls for the latter anyways).

[Calimehter]

My favorite answer to this "either/or" question is choice C . . . arrays.

Going with a fixed array (arranged to choice by the player) eliminates the random power fluctuations of dice rolling, and also prevents the "dump it all into one stat and play a caster" problem you can get with point buy.

[HunterOfJello]

Low point buy is the worst since it rewards single stat casters and pretty much no one else.

Rolling is in the middle depending on what method of rolling is done. You're likely to get a pretty wide margin of results with 3d6, but lots of people now do 4d6 while dropping the lowest, and some groups even do 5d6 drop 2 or 4d6 drop 2 and reroll all 1s. Some people even use d4s and the like, but that just forces you further into the middle stats. Some of these are actually really good and some are lackluster.

The old 3d6 can pretty hard on a character and push them into very specific classes in order to remain effective in a party. A character with all 8s and a 14 can do decently well as a non-save caster, warlock, druid, or a form changing class that replaces its physical stats with others. If I had a few levels to work with, I would probably go into Master of Many Forms at that point. It isn't as strong as other classes, but it packs a mean punch.

Point buy is usually the method to go with if everyone at the table is interested in playing an effective character without optimization.

[Suichimo]

That said, I agree with Chronos. Pick one or pick the other, and if you pick the one that has risk involved I think you should suck it up instead of asking the GM to change the rules for you if it goes poorly.

I've never had a DM who has given me the choice of stat generation method. I find it crazy that one even would.

[bjoern]

We always do 4d6 reroll any 1s ONCE per 4d6, drop lowest.
Turned out funny for our current set up, the two least effective players wound up with the best numbers one even had 2 - 18s!

[Hanuman]

Rule of 12

PC's have 12 minimum, NPC's have 10

So, if all your attributes add up to below 72 and you have a fairly balanced spread then you are running a very low powered campaign, like, NPC classes.

Pathfinder pointbuy, it's balanced, fair, tracks well and can be homebrewed.

I have my players gain 1 pointbuy point per level since it's a scaling power campaign, 1/2level could be a valid replacement for 1/4 level +1 for more balanced characters.

[SciChronic]

i'm usually pretty generous whenever i do rolls myself, 6d6 for 1 stat 5d6 for 1 stat, 4d6 for the rest, reroll all ones, roll up 2 stat blocks, choose one. this gives a good chance for the players to get a a stat block that they can be happy with.

that said i pretty much just do point-buy nowadays.

[Killer Angel]

Point buy.
I still remember, back in AD&D, that campaign where the highest stat i rolled for my character was a 16, and one of my friends got three 18.

[jiriku]

You see, I disagree with this. I view the point buy as establishing a minimum level of power. If you roll above it, good for you, but a stat block like the one I got essentially blocked me from the campaign, which is a stupid reason to not be able to play.

I'd take issue with that. Your ability score set was playable, and you certainly weren't "blocked from the campaign." With that set you won't be the power munchkin on the team, and might even be the low man on the totem pole, but there are many classes and builds that can function on those stats. The key to being a happy camper is that when you're rolling stats, you build your character concept after you roll your stats -- precisely because the stats you roll may not support a previously constructed concept. You built your character backwards.


Meanwhile, someone else has rolled two 18s, a 16, a 15, a 14, and a 13. They will do something different from me, and still do my thing better than me

This is an example of why I hate stat-rolling. The one guy in the party who's on a hot streak when he rolls will permanently be ahead of the rest of the party. The guy with those stats would do anybody's thing better than anybody could. It's as if he received 100,000 gp worth of stat-boosting gear for free at 1st level. I had a player do this in two campaigns in a row about ten years ago, and since then we've run 100% of our games on point buy.

[Vhaidara]

I'd take issue with that. Your ability score set was playable, and you certainly weren't "blocked from the campaign." With that set you won't be the power munchkin on the team, and might even be the low man on the totem pole, but there are many classes and builds that can function on those stats. The key to being a happy camper is that when you're rolling stats, you build your character concept after you roll your stats -- precisely because the stats you roll may not support a previously constructed concept. You built your character backwards.

Normally, I do, but the problem is that pretty much every class that didn't need good stats wasn't permitted, since it was a low magic (as in no bards level low magic) campaign being run without ToB. Incarnum was out as well. I basically had Core mundanes, CW, and CAdv. None of those classes function well on bad stats. And nothing I had any interest in playing could work with stats like that.

[The Insanity]

Character generation is too important to leave it up to chance, that's why I never play in games that force me to roll for stats, whether ability scores or hp or whatever. In my games I use pointbuy, a generous one at that, but recently I saw someone say they allow their players to just make their ability scores be whatever they want (so no rolling or pointbuy), and I'm really warming up to that idea.

[Hurnn]

I used to prefer rolled; but after my last campaign I switched my opinion. The poor guy who wanted to play a monk had an average stat of 13 (4 points above statistical average) I was about the same as the monk but Being a Cleric buff bot my stats were basically irrelevant while the Bard and Druid were both 14-15 above the average and my GF turned on full crazy mode with the dice and was 21 points above the average as a Ranger. the poor monk was basically useless.

[Oneris]

What about rolling enough stats for everyone in the party and letting the players divide among themselves which numbers they want? It'll avoid issues where one person has exclusively low scores while another has only high scores while still allowing for some unexpected variation. Could bog down the first session though, but character creation was always expected to take a bit long.

[Angelalex242]

I've been fond of 'the whole party has 18s across the board. Knock yourselves out.'

The idea is that this group of PCs are divinely blessed 'superheroes' of their respective races.

I've found this helps MAD classes quite a bit, while SAD classes just shrug at their other 18s.

[Story]

The standard 4d6 drop lowest, repeat 6 times is approximately equivalent to the Elite Array or 25 point buy.

No it's not. The standard rolling rules correspond to an average of 30.4 PB with a median of 28-29.

[Diachronos]

What about rolling enough stats for everyone in the party and letting the players divide among themselves which numbers they want? It'll avoid issues where one person has exclusively low scores while another has only high scores while still allowing for some unexpected variation. Could bog down the first session though, but character creation was always expected to take a bit long.

There's an interesting idea. I might consider running that by my group at some point.

I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, but I honestly prefer rolling stats over point buy because at least that way you have a chance to get a lot of good stats. Granted, my viewpoint might be biased since nearly every campaign I've been in has been fairly generous with rolls; my first DM had us do "4d6 minus the lowest, and reroll both 1s and any stat below a 12," and another friend likes to do "4d6, drop the lowest, 1s count as 6s."

From my limited experience with point-buy, it seems like you only have 2 real options unless your DM is giving you a large number of points to use: pick a class than only needs 1-2 stats and dump everything into those stats (which basically means any traditionally "Tier 1" class), or pick a class that needs multiple stats and get really low stats trying to cover all of your needs. It feels almost like you're being punished for wanting to play something like a monk or a paladin.

[Thanatosia]

I always felt RNG should be for play time, character generation should have none of it. I hate random stats and hit dice.

[Curmudgeon]

Rolling is inherently unfair, because you can't know that the numbers you get and the character you want to build will be compatible. On average, if you've at least got the flexibility to arrange the numbers, both low point buy and rolling will encourage players to create spellcaster characters. When one stat is so much more important than others, the advantages of that one good number outweigh the disadvantages of all the others. Getting multiple good stats is impossible with low point buy, and is unlikely with rolled stats.

As I see it, there are two relatively fair ways to go about stat generation:
Relatively high (32 or thereabouts) point buy for everyone. You can build most any character you want to play. Spellcasters dominate the game as usual.
Point buy altered by the Tier System for Classes:

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but realistically: just forget it. :smallsigh:
(This assumes you're going to start in your primary class. If you change the primary class in later levels you'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.) You get more points for the classes that are hard to make work otherwise. Spellcasters will still dominate the game, but it happens a few levels later.

[thedmring]

I make them roll 3d6 for each stat taking what ever they get. If they roll low I double the challenge they face.

[Malak'ai]

You see, I have the counter argument that a caster can work better with bad rolls than a mundane. Take the statblock I presented, which I think we can all agree is pretty garbage (16 point buy)
Mundane has a 14 and a 13 to work with, and needs to have 2 negative stats. One goes to Cha, and then he has to choose either penalty to Will or penalty to skill points. Meanwhile, he can get a slightly above average Str and some more HP.

Caster, meanwhile, puts the 14 in his casting stat, and will get it up to 19 with relative ease. He pus the 13 in his Con for HP or Dex for AC. 8s go to Str and Cha, 10s go to Wis and the other of Dex/Con.

EDIT: Rerolls go if you have no scores above 13 (I have a 14) or if the total is +0 or less (I have +1).


Zero stats, really. There is no rolled stat distribution, meaning anything that can't be rerolled, that doesn't reasonably ensure perfect casting across all levels. Even all 10's and 11's means perfect access to spells at all levels apart from three, as long as you can ensure reasonable access to items that provide bonuses to ability scores, and you necessarily start with at least one 13.

The book says a total modifier of +0 is necessary to justify a reroll, and his is +1. Thus, no reroll. I can't see a way to read it the way you're saying.

Ack! That was supposed to be +0. Was posting from my phone and I must not have lifted my finger properly when I went back to the 'keyboard'.
As for the bad maths, well that's just me being bad at maths.

[ace rooster]

I'm a bit odd, in that I am perfectly happy in a campaign where the DM just gives us characters (I generally take 'keep the DM happy' as a feat anyway). I actually enjoy the challenge of playing something that I would not have picked, so randomised abilities does appeal to me. The problem is that rolling can lead to large power disparities in the party, which can marginalise some characters, particularly if they don't build to suit their abilities. What might be better is a method of randomising abilities that still balances power levels. A randomised (with some ability to nudge) point buy system for example, where the number of points is fixed, but there is a degree of chance in how they are assigned. (Homebrew coming soon)

If it is a flat up choice, I still go with rolling. At best you can be a monster. At worst the party whipping boy (which can be more fun than it sounds. LEEROY!). If all else fails you can go druid, and basically ditch your own abilities. Rolling means that you cannot prepare a build to the same extent, which I actually view as a positive.

[Raimun]

I think I prefer dice rolling.

With point buy everyone gets the equal amount of stat power... except it's not an equal amount. That is, unless everyone rolled the same class. Pure casters need only one good stat to shine and they can automatically max that. Then they can put the rest of the points to some tertiaty stats that are simply for survival (Con, Dex). Meanwhile, fighting types struggle to maintain the same level of relative effectiveness with the "equal" point buy.

15 Point Buy wizard can get 18(+Race) Int. That wizard's spells will be as good as those cast by 35 Point Buy wizard. In quite many situations (typical battle: wizard hiding behind party members, summons, invisibility etc.) the two wizards are pretty much as effective. 15 PB Wizard can be easily one of the more competent wizards possible within the system.

15 Point Buy Monk is a different story. I think we can all agree that the result will be not one of the more competent Monks possible within the system.

With dice rolls, the Wizard does not get his/her Int 18 every time and the monk player might be able to roll 3-4 stats with +3 modifier. I've seen players making and enjoying MAD-classes after particularly lucky dice rolls.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I always felt RNG should be for play time, character generation should have none of it. I hate random stats and hit dice.

This. Either point buy or an array for stats, with HD being 1/2HD +1 +Con is what i use when i dm. Most of the DMs i've gamed with do something similar. The last time i've played with rolled stats was before 3.0 iirc.

You can include higher stats for lower tier classes if you want but those shouldn't be dependant on luck, imo.

[eggynack]

I think I prefer dice rolling.

With point buy everyone gets the equal amount of stat power... except it's not an equal amount. That is, unless everyone rolled the same class. Pure casters need only one good stat to shine and they can automatically max that. Then they can put the rest of the points to some tertiaty stats that are simply for survival (Con, Dex). Meanwhile, fighting types struggle to maintain the same level of relative effectiveness with the "equal" point buy.

15 Point Buy wizard can get 18(+Race) Int. That wizard's spells will be as good as those cast by 35 Point Buy wizard. In quite many situations (typical battle: wizard hiding behind party members, summons, invisibility etc.) the two wizards are pretty much as effective. 15 PB Wizard can be easily one of the more competent wizards possible within the system.

15 Point Buy Monk is a different story. I think we can all agree that the result will be not one of the more competent Monks possible within the system.

With dice rolls, the Wizard does not get his/her Int 18 every time and the monk player might be able to roll 3-4 stats with +3 modifier. I've seen players making and enjoying MAD-classes after particularly lucky dice rolls.
But, y'know, then the opposite happens, and the wizard gets the crazy mods, while the monk flounders. Or, alternatively, both characters roll low, except the wizard can deal with extremely low modifiers, and the monk can't. Really, your argument here seems more a condemnation of low point buys than point buys in general. Up the stats by a lot, and you end up with a monk with tons of points for his necessary stats, and a wizard pushing a few key stats as far as he can, thus using that mod a bit less efficiently.

[Brookshw]

Personally I prefer 4d6 drop lowest, assign as you like myself, usually leaning that less than a cumulative +2 is grounds for a reroll. Sure sometimes a player may end up with more power than another, especially in certain areas, but that tends to be a result anyway. It's only rarely in my experience created huge disparities and if the party is ultimately scattered across the spectrum enough the lower rollers might get the option of rerolling. Frankly I've had players that prefer to place the stats as the roll them to see what they end up with rather than assign, players who have turned down rerolls because they think the original low rolls would be fun to play, and so on, so I don't put care much what happens as long as everyone's happy with the character they have. Point buy bugs me a bit though on a verisimilitude level.

[Dalebert]

For those who sincerely believe in the tiers, has anyone thought about using stats to try to compensate somewhat? There seems to be a trend in people saying the lower tiers tend to need better stats in order to be effective. What about a point buy system that gives lower tiers a few more points?

If you roll, have you considered instead of using the drop-the-lowest method, what about just letting them roll 2 or 3 sets and pick one? Or if you want to favor lower tiers, let each person roll two sets of stats by some consistent method, put them all in a pool and let each player pick one set starting from lowest tier to highest. That inserts a degree of randomness while reducing the likelihood of getting stuck with crap.

I've always believed in point buys and consistent HP just on the basis of fairness and I tend to agree that something so permanent shouldn't just be random. Other kinds of random rolls theoretically balance out over the life of your character just based on statistics. But I find myself really liking the make a list of stat sets and let players pick in order of tiers method.

[eggynack]

For those who sincerely believe in the tiers, has anyone thought about using stats to try to compensate somewhat? There seems to be a trend in people saying the lower tiers tend to need better stats in order to be effective. What about a point buy system that gives lower tiers a few more points?

Yes. Check out post three, option one in the tier system for classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=r1tjfrabsqvltettk68becroa2&topic=5293).

[Jermz]

I'll chime in with the minority here and say that I prefer 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste. Although varying the point buy amount based on tiers might be interesting. I like the randomness of dice rolling, and if I get sucky stats, well, then I just play them. I've found that it tends to create more memorable characters. I'm not hugely fond of the same stats on everyone, though I do understand that this is probably a slightly flawed outlook. Just personal preference, I guess.

In general, when I DM, I let my players roll 3 sets of 4d6, and if they don't like the look of those, I let them do a 32-point buy. I like my players to have nice shiny stats to fool around with.

[Vhaidara]

What about rolling enough stats for everyone in the party and letting the players divide among themselves which numbers they want? It'll avoid issues where one person has exclusively low scores while another has only high scores while still allowing for some unexpected variation. Could bog down the first session though, but character creation was always expected to take a bit long.

I actually did that in an IRL campaign. I was playing a sickeningly MAD build (I needed at least straight 13s for feat prereqs, except Wisdom), while a friend was playing a non-combat focused Factotum. I rolled mediocre (I think 3 scores in 14+), while he got an 18, 2 17s, a 16, a 15, and a 12. Now, he wanted a dump stat, and our GM was letting us point buy with our rolls. So he point bought on my character.

I think part of why dice rolls hurt so much for me is that, when I started playing and when I GM, I'm accustomed to 3.5 32 point buy starting at 10s. So, effectively, 44 point buy

[Tvtyrant]

I use either the hero or superhero array myself. Hero is 16, 14, 12,12 10, 8 with +2 to 2. Superhero kicks it up to 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10 +2 to 2.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think I like an array of 16, 15, 15, 13, 10, 8. On the one hand, this means that casters and other SAD classes can't have their guaranteed 18. On the other hand, it gives MAD characters three pretty good stats, one good enough to meet feat prerequisites, one average, and one dump stat.

[Vhaidara]

Personally, I think I like an array of 16, 15, 15, 13, 10, 8. On the one hand, this means that casters and other SAD classes can't have their guaranteed 18. On the other hand, it gives MAD characters three pretty good stats, one good enough to meet feat prerequisites, one average, and one dump stat.

I think people are too scared about giving the casters an 18. There have been several discussions that show that optimal casters don't need high stats. If anything, giving casters lower stats pushes them to use the more optimal "no save just lose" kinds of BFC spells. I mean, a Blaster caster, which is probably one of the more balanced kinds of caster (barring things like Mailman), benefits more from the extra spells (efficiency of blasting is awful on a spell-to-spell basis) and save DCs (things making saves hurts them more than other kinds of caster).

[Firechanter]

Point Buy, 32 or so.

If it has to be Rolling, then by some method that makes sure everyone gets functional stats.
But given the choice I prefer PB by a large margin.

[Zanos]

What about rolling enough stats for everyone in the party and letting the players divide among themselves which numbers they want? It'll avoid issues where one person has exclusively low scores while another has only high scores while still allowing for some unexpected variation. Could bog down the first session though, but character creation was always expected to take a bit long.
This is really the only fair way to do rolling. I've never played a caimpaign where we rolled for stats where there wasn't someone leaps and bounds above other people in ability scores.

I vastly prefer point buy, however.

[Jormengand]

Rolls that cause you to lose the game before it's even started are Bad, Children. Use point buy instead.

If you're really worried about the dreaded 18, then give everyone flat 16s and be done with it. Fighters can drop a point in DEX if they need all the TWF feats, monks can enjoy actually being vaguely useful, truenamers can get their +1 to truespeak checks from somewhere else (Or someone could take a level in marshal, because they have the CHA for it).

Meanwhile, the wizard can hit people slightly harder with a stick. Which is probably a good thing anyway, because at low levels the wizard was probably pretty screwed when he ran out of spells and at high levels he wasn't gonna run out anyway.

[Chronos]

Mechanically, I can see the benefits of a straght-16 or straight-18 array... but it clashes too much with my notions of simulationism and narrativism. Both of those are best served by random scores. Nonrandom scores but with variation, like from point buy or a non-constant array, serve as a reasonable compromise.

[VoxRationis]

You don't "lose" the game before playing through bad rolls. You don't "lose" the game at all, unless the players dissolve into bickering and everyone quits.
I am not the person who benefits mechanically from a rolling character generation. I consistently roll lower, much lower, than other people in my gaming group when making characters. (And yes, we've checked people's dice, made them switch dice, made them roll in front of everyone, etc.) My characters are famous for low Constitution because I'm usually playing character concepts where frailty is the only acceptable penalty to have. But the random rolls create a more, in the words of Chronos, "simulationist" game, and that's what I'm really going for. If I wanted continual testosterone-driven chest-pounding about how awesome everyone's characters were, driven by the Rule of Cool, I'd play something freeform or just sit down for a communal storytelling session, and everyone's characters could be as ridiculously statted as they'd like. But I'm not going for that. I'm going for a feel where the characters, while special and well above the norm, feel a little down-to-earth, and have foibles and weaknesses like actual people.

[Brookshw]

You don't "lose" the game before playing through bad rolls. unless we're playing hackmaster where you can die before the game begins :smallbiggrin:

[TheIronGolem]

I'm going for a feel where the characters, while special and well above the norm, feel a little down-to-earth, and have foibles and weaknesses like actual people.
Rolling stats won't do that any better than point-buy or arrays will, because these traits do not arise from numerical stats to begin with.

[Jormengand]

Rolling stats won't do that any better than point-buy or arrays will, because these traits do not arise from numerical stats to begin with.

Yup. Given that :roy: clearly rolled for his stats, and clearly rolled well for his stats, and isn't amazingly perfect in every way, I'd think it obvious that you can have weaknesses without having an 8 in a stat.

[Anlashok]

Yup. Given that :roy: clearly rolled for his stats, and clearly rolled well for his stats, and isn't amazingly perfect in every way, I'd think it obvious that you can have weaknesses without having an 8 in a stat.

Yeah. But from a roleplaying angle it is much easier to just say "this stat is low so I do Y". Not everyone is particularly good at it and if someone needs a mechanical impetus to roleplay effectively then might as well let them have it.

[Tvtyrant]

You don't "lose" the game before playing through bad rolls. You don't "lose" the game at all, unless the players dissolve into bickering and everyone quits.
I am not the person who benefits mechanically from a rolling character generation. I consistently roll lower, much lower, than other people in my gaming group when making characters. (And yes, we've checked people's dice, made them switch dice, made them roll in front of everyone, etc.) My characters are famous for low Constitution because I'm usually playing character concepts where frailty is the only acceptable penalty to have. But the random rolls create a more, in the words of Chronos, "simulationist" game, and that's what I'm really going for. If I wanted continual testosterone-driven chest-pounding about how awesome everyone's characters were, driven by the Rule of Cool, I'd play something freeform or just sit down for a communal storytelling session, and everyone's characters could be as ridiculously statted as they'd like. But I'm not going for that. I'm going for a feel where the characters, while special and well above the norm, feel a little down-to-earth, and have foibles and weaknesses like actual people.

Because when I am a low con individual who cannot run a mile, it makes total sense for me to become a murder hobo. Even with guns that makes no sense, much less when in melee combat. Rolling does not aid simulationism because an individual who is too weak or frail to adventure is not going to.

[TheIronGolem]

Because when I am a low con individual who cannot run a mile, it makes total sense for me to become a murder hobo. Even with guns that makes no sense, much less when in melee combat. Rolling does not aid simulationism because an individual who is too weak or frail to adventure is not going to.

Hang on, that's not fair either. Low CON can mean any number of things, it doesn't automatically mean you're too frail for the adventuring life.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah. But from a roleplaying angle it is much easier to just say "this stat is low so I do Y". Not everyone is particularly good at it and if someone needs a mechanical impetus to roleplay effectively then might as well let them have it.

So the people who can roleplay have to deal with mechanically deficient characters who can't do what the player wants them to because some people are bad at roleplaying?

This doesn't even sound like an argument for dice rolls, this sounds like an argument for a point buy with the rule that you must have a stat below 10, since dice rolls can also give you a full set of 18s (never seen it, but my cousin once rolled three 18s, two 17s, and a 16. On my dice)

[Jormengand]

Yeah. But from a roleplaying angle it is much easier to just say "this stat is low so I do Y". Not everyone is particularly good at it and if someone needs a mechanical impetus to roleplay effectively then might as well let them have it.

True, but people who are bad at role-playing and haven't played D&D before in their life are also the people who are less likely to go crazy if you give them access to an 18, so you can just use normal point buy.

[Hecuba]

3d6 6 times in order.
Pick your class after rolling.

Sadly, with a caster for every mental stat its not as varied as I would like for 3.5.
Clearly, a sound case for re-instituting prime requisites.

[Vhaidara]

3d6 6 times in order.
Pick your class after rolling.

Sadly, with a caster for every mental stat its not as varied as I would like for 3.5.
Clearly, a sound case for re-instituting prime requisites.

Please tell me you're kidding. On both counts. That sounds completely awful. I have a hard time getting positive stats with 4d6b3 (dice hate me).

Also, what would you do if you didn't qualify for a class?

[IAmTehDave]

Please tell me you're kidding. On both counts. That sounds completely awful. I have a hard time getting positive stats with 4d6b3 (dice hate me).

Also, what would you do if you didn't qualify for a class?

You play a commoner, laugh when you die, and roll a new character?

This particular stat rolling sounds like old school, where character death seems to have been more common.

On topic: I've always played in campaigns with rolled stats, but when I DM a game coming up, I'm going to stick with point buy. Helps keep the party in relatively equal footing. Also: the system I'm using doesn't require as high stats to be functional, and rewards more well-rounded (statwise) characters. Many classes in 3.X, on the other hand, seem to work best with min/maxed stats.

[ComaVision]

It seems many people are forgetting that assigning stats comes before selecting race and class during character creation. Why play a game where everything is determined by dice rolls if you want to prevent chance from the very beginning? I'll select a build that works with the stats that I roll, it doesn't make sense that my character would have become a MAD class like a Paladin if he wasn't cut out for it at all due to him not having the natural abilities required.

I've played in two long-term campaigns, first being point buy and the second being dice rolled. My point buy stats were way better but either way my character was the only one that didn't die over the course of the campaign.

I like death in games, and I like conflict in games. The weak and non-strategic die, and I will flourish either way.

EDIT: Also, my groups don't play planet smashers and plane destroyers anyway. Those are fun to build but they don't make a good story.

[TheIronGolem]

Why play a game where everything is determined by dice rolls if you want to prevent chance from the very beginning?

D&D is not such a game.

[Hecuba]

Please tell me you're kidding. On both counts. That sounds completely awful. I have a hard time getting positive stats with 4d6b3 (dice hate me).

Also, what would you do if you didn't qualify for a class?

You can take a class without meeting the prime requisites: you just advance more slowly.
And 3d6 in order isn't supposed to get you a net positive.

I like the dynamics better if the characters are average people who become exceptional.
I'm also fine with character deaths, if they're not unexpected.
Additionally, I find rolling first then build the character around the rolls encourages people to expand their role-playing & storytelling range. (This, of course, presumes that you have a group that is interested in and capable of role-playing primarily through improvisational storytelling).

I realize though, that this isn't the most systemically sound option for 3.5: I really only go for it when I'm playing with a group that aims for the feel of older editions while happening to be using 3.5 as the mechanical resolution framework.

[sleepy hedgehog]

My favorite stat rolling method was roll 3d6 in order. Then if below 28 point buy, you can increase (not decrease) those stats up to 28 point buy.

It allows people some freedom with their characters, adds a little bit of variance, and gives a slight benefit to people who roll low or high.
It also gives the feeling of what the character was intrinsically good at, and what he has practiced at.

[IAmTehDave]

It seems many people are forgetting that assigning stats comes before selecting race and class during character creation. Why play a game where everything is determined by dice rolls if you want to prevent chance from the very beginning? I'll select a build that works with the stats that I roll, it doesn't make sense that my character would have become a MAD class like a Paladin if he wasn't cut out for it at all due to him not having the natural abilities required.

Yeah, but let's say I REALLY want to play a Paladin. Why should I play a GAME where I'm going to be terrible in my choice because Random Chance said I don't have the stats for it?

What if the party really needs a meat shield, I want to play a Paladin, but I rolled an array of 12/10/13/10/11/8? And then for my 6 HD I get 10/2/3/1/4/1 By RAW that's a viable character. But there's no way those stats are going on a melee in D&D. That's 22 HP at level 6, with a 2-hander doing 2d6+3 points of damage. So instead it's a focused specialist Conjuration wizard and I'm going to be summoning the meat shields. That's not what I came to this table to play, and thus I'm not having fun. I'm going to get this character killed so I can reroll my stats.
(See the problem here? Yes this seems like an extreme situation but I've seen similar. I've run under a DM that said "You're only allowed to have 3 characters in this campaign")(Note: This is all Hypothetical. No rational DM will let a character start with those stats if the party really needs a meat shield, but we have to work on the assumption that this Hypothetical DM using rolled stats is going strictly by the book)

You want Verisimilitude for a Point Buy system? Here it is: You already know the type of character you're going to play, (In this case, Paladin) so the character that you're creating is chosen in the world as someone who happens to have the stats that would make for a good Paladin (Good Charisma, Decent Strength/Con, possibly not bad Dex, Int/Wis as whatever) not the guy with the stats that only work for a non-casting Druid.

[Vhaidara]

It seems many people are forgetting that assigning stats comes before selecting race and class during character creation. Why play a game where everything is determined by dice rolls if you want to prevent chance from the very beginning? I'll select a build that works with the stats that I roll, it doesn't make sense that my character would have become a MAD class like a Paladin if he wasn't cut out for it at all due to him not having the natural abilities required.

Again, this frequently comes down to playing a caster, since any non casting class is at least slightly MAD. Str, Dex and Con are all needed in at least slight numbers, then most classes that don't have inherent MAD (Monk, Paladin) have low base Will saves and crappy skill points, so you need Wis and Int, and not everyone wants to just take a massive dump on Cha.

Further, what about campaigns that limit your class selection? In the example campaign from the beginning, anything with beyond 4th level spells was banned, as was ToB, MoI, ToM, and Invocation users. That leaves a bunch of MAD classes.

[Dread_Head]

I prefer some combination of dice rolls and point buy. Something like 6+d8 six times with a 15 point buy on top of it. Or 3d6 six times with a low point buy attached.

This way it seems less formulaic than point buy and keeps some of the randomness of rolling whilst still letting you play most concepts.

[Chronos]

One possibility I've pondered for stat generation is that you roll 3d6 in order... but that you do it, say, 20 times for each player, and then they pick the set that they like (obviously, this would be a lot easier with a computer doing the rolls). This way, no matter your character concept, you've got a pretty good chance of getting rolls that will work, but you also don't have exact control. From a simulationist point of view, this reflects the reason why the PCs are a bit above average: Those other 19 rolls that you didn't choose represent the guys who just weren't cut out for the adventuring life and stayed home on the farm. If you wanted, you could also use this method to enforce demographics: If you want a world where, say, humans are most numerous, and elves very rare, you could make 10 of those rolls humans, 3 halflings, 2 dwarves, 2 gnomes, a half-orc, a half-elf, and an elf, so you wouldn't need to explain why party is mostly elves in a human-dominated world (though admittedly this isn't as much of an issue now as it was in 2nd edition, when nobody wanted to play a human).

[Vhaidara]

Honestly the only dice rolling style I've ever really liked was how my cousin did it
5d6b3
Reroll all ones (keep rerolling until no ones)
Roll 7 stats, drop lowest or second lowest
If total mod is below +4, reroll.

Yes, I am the reason for the rerolling rule.

[Zanos]

Honestly the only dice rolling style I've ever really liked was how my cousin did it
5d6b3
Reroll all ones (keep rerolling until no ones)
Roll 7 stats, drop lowest or second lowest
If total mod is below +4, reroll.

Yes, I am the reason for the rerolling rule.
I wouldn't normally suggest it but you may want to invest in some weighted dice.

[Thiyr]

So my group did a lot of 4d6b3 7 times, drop lowest, 3 times, choose preferred array. And while it didn't prevent good games, over time I grew frustrated with it. I knew people that had gotten multiple 18s multiple ttimes, while the only 18 I've ever rolled for a stat was for a cohort. I've rolled four 16s and two 15s. And while we have a good group that doesn't let it become a huge issue, that initial power disparity just didn't feel fun to me. We did a single game on point buy recently, and I think we all enjoyed that a bit more.

But I went with a fourth option (because bah, screw arrays) for the game I'm running, and another DM picked it up as well for his game. Players just...well, as I told them by email,
Choose ability scores that you feel are appropriate for your character. I'm gonna trust you guys. I expect you to put something high in your main stat(s), but if you try to abuse my trust and be Captain 18-in-all-stats, I will dump you on a 15 point buy.

Freeform ability scores. Obviously this is a group I play with frequently and trust not to be jerks (and there are only two of them). Interesting note tho, they both by complete accident ended up within 1 point of each other on point buy. Yes, it was fairly high, but they're both melee guys, so I'm down with it. Toss on always-maxed HD and things worked out nicely. (It bugs me that higher HD Sizes arent really notable on average, and rolls can make you have Conan the Barbarian With Less HP Than The Wizard. But maxed HP makes that d12 just feel a lot better.)

[urbanwolf]

I like dice rolls for new players and for encouraging players to think more about who there characters are.
Where as point buy I find better for straight dungeon exploration and more experienced players.

Arrays have a very nice appeal as well, in games with player players of different skill an array can be the best of both.

For dice I like the 2d6+6 more then 4d6 drop one, and once did a player challenge where it was
pick class, pick race, roll 3d6 in order, with one reroll and one swap. Good times I recommend it.

Point buys I like using slandered or one step up if I know I am going to be mean.

as for arrays 15,14,13,12,10,8 or 18,16,16,13,13,10

[lytokk]

I honestly like both systems. I have a lot of fun when I do point buy, and a lot of fun when I roll. My method for my players in my more recent games have been for everyone to get a standard 18, then 4d6b3 6 times, dropping whichever one you want. If your total modifier is less than +4, you can reroll. It creates higher powered characters, which I like to use to set them apart. It fit this setting and campaign I was running. I like my players feeling that their characters are special, a cut above anything that may exist.

If I was to do a unknown to hero type game, I would alter the method to fit what I thought was best. I think the method really depends on what type of game I'm running. Also, I've always been flexible in my stats. If everyone except one person rolls well, and that one does horribly, I let them re-roll.

There's virtues to both systems. Point buy keeps everyone on a more level field for a little while, and rolls introduce randomness to the group. I like both and use both in the games as I see fit.

[VoxRationis]

Rolling stats won't do that any better than point-buy or arrays will, because these traits do not arise from numerical stats to begin with.

Poppycock. While obviously six stats can't portray all the strengths and weaknesses one might have, many can be, and low stats provide the roots for in-character weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that your high-Wisdom cleric is oblivious and prone to rash action. But their low Charisma, now that tells you something about them. They might be acerbic, or maybe just withdrawn.

[Vhaidara]

Poppycock. While obviously six stats can't portray all the strengths and weaknesses one might have, many can be, and low stats provide the roots for in-character weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that your high-Wisdom cleric is oblivious and prone to rash action. But their low Charisma, now that tells you something about them. They might be acerbic, or maybe just withdrawn.

You see, this is an argument I usually see about alignment.
"I'm X alignment, so I do this!"
When it should be
"I'm X alignment, because I choose to do this!"

In this case, you're saying
"Stat X is Y, so I'm Z!"
When it should be
"I'm Z, so I'm going to have stat X be Y"
or
"Even though stat X is Y, I'm Z, because stat X being Y is represented in another way!"

[Seppo87]

For those who sincerely believe in the tiers, has anyone thought about using stats to try to compensate somewhat?
This only helps up to a certain degree. Tiers are less about power and more about versatility.
What defines a high tier class is that it grants access to the tools needed to succeed at tasks.
Improving a Fighter's stats will help him winning straightforward combat but there are 2 important exceptions:
1- the fighter still lacks out of combat problem solving
2- the fighter can still be easily disabled or prevented from using his combat skills. To make an example, it doesn't matter how high your performances are on paper if you can't get out of a forcecage

Increasing stats can indeed help bad classes like the Samurai when it comes to performing their intended role. But it doesn't guarantee they WILL be able to employ their skill in a meaningful way, even in their intended environment (combat)

[Vhaidara]

This only helps up to a certain degree. Tiers are less about power and more about versatility.
What defines a high tier class is that it grants access to the tools needed to succeed at tasks.
Improving a Fighter's stats will help him winning straightforward combat but there are 2 important exceptions:
1- the fighter still lacks out of combat problem solving
2- the fighter can still be easily disabled or prevented from using his combat skills. To make an example, it doesn't matter how high your performances are on paper if you can't get out of a forcecage

Increasing stats can indeed help bad classes like the Samurai when it comes to performing their intended role. Unfortunately this is not nearly enough to make tiers equal.

Hey, I just had an idea. Point buy = Tier squaredx2. Wizards get their 10 Int, and T6 classes get to have the absolute lols of a 72 point buy.

[Seppo87]

Hey, I just had an idea. Point buy = Tier squaredx2. Wizards get their 10 Int, and T6 classes get to have the absolute lols of a 72 point buy.
Even giving Fighters infinite HPs, to-hit, damage, AC, initiative and saves would not make them Tier1.

On the other hand, a caster who can't cast is indeed not a Tier1. But even if a wizard was limited to a single LV9 spell per day, it would still have enough power to endanger the gaming world.

It's not about stats.

[Jormengand]

Tiers are less about power and more about versatility.

This is true between 1 and 2, partially true between 2 and 4 and not at all true between 4 and 6. Tier 6 are tier 6 because they do what they're meant to do badly, Tier 5 because they do what they're meant to do mediocrely, T4 because they do what they're meant to do well. It's not about how many things they do, it's about how well they do the one thing that they do. It is about power and not versatility.

The higher tiers, yeah, sure, but even giving the sorcerer hit-things-with-a-stick competence will increase his versatility a little.

[Amphetryon]

For those who sincerely believe in the tiers, has anyone thought about using stats to try to compensate somewhat? There seems to be a trend in people saying the lower tiers tend to need better stats in order to be effective. What about a point buy system that gives lower tiers a few more points?

If you roll, have you considered instead of using the drop-the-lowest method, what about just letting them roll 2 or 3 sets and pick one? Or if you want to favor lower tiers, let each person roll two sets of stats by some consistent method, put them all in a pool and let each player pick one set starting from lowest tier to highest. That inserts a degree of randomness while reducing the likelihood of getting stuck with crap.

I've always believed in point buys and consistent HP just on the basis of fairness and I tend to agree that something so permanent shouldn't just be random. Other kinds of random rolls theoretically balance out over the life of your character just based on statistics. But I find myself really liking the make a list of stat sets and let players pick in order of tiers method.

See Curmudgeon's post #33, conveniently a few above yours, for the point-buy based fix he's espoused with some regularity here at GitP.

[TheIronGolem]

Poppycock. While obviously six stats can't portray all the strengths and weaknesses one might have, many can be, and low stats provide the roots for in-character weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that your high-Wisdom cleric is oblivious and prone to rash action. But their low Charisma, now that tells you something about them. They might be acerbic, or maybe just withdrawn.

Just as a high-Cha character can be ugly or have a grating personality, and a high-Int character can be forgetful or bad at simple tasks, a high-Wis character can certainly be oblivious and/or prone to rash action; high Wisdom doesn't have to make you level-headed. It could mean you're especially stubborn and willful, or that you're highly perceptive, or that you have a great deal of common sense. But it doesn't have to mean all of them, or any of them in particular.

Example: Dr. House has a high Wisdom; he's extremely strong-willed and a master of social perception (all kinds of perception really, but particularly social). But he does stupid, petty, immature things on a whim all the time. The guy ended his last on-screen relationship by driving his car into his ex's house during a dinner party.

Ability scores do not dictate personality.

[Seppo87]

This is true between 1 and 2, partially true between 2 and 4 and not at all true between 4 and 6. Tier 6 are tier 6 because they do what they're meant to do badly, Tier 5 because they do what they're meant to do mediocrely, T4 because they do what they're meant to do well. It's not about how many things they do, it's about how well they do the one thing that they do. It is about power and not versatility.

The higher tiers, yeah, sure, but even giving the sorcerer hit-things-with-a-stick competence will increase his versatility a little.
True. I just wanted to point out that even a very strong Samurai is not guaranteed to actually have a chance at doing what he's supposed to do.
A Repel Metal is enough to entirely disable his class, so basically... power only goes so far

[Vhaidara]

Even giving Fighters infinite HPs, to-hit, damage, AC, initiative and saves would not make them Tier1.

On the other hand, a caster who can't cast is indeed not a Tier1. But even if a wizard was limited to a single LV9 spell per day, it would still have enough power to endanger the gaming world.

It's not about stats.

One moment, I forgot to make that post partially blue. I just got a laugh out of the idea of a 72 point buy.

[kernal42]

My favourite method is to give everyone a high stat (16-18) in whatever ability they choose, then roll the remaining five in order with whatever method you prefer (4d6, drop lowest, for example).

This lets everyone play the class they want (rogue/wizard/fighter etc), but not necessarily the way that they want. I think it encourages more creativity and diversity among the characters.

Cheers,
Kernal

[Vogonjeltz]

So, I was applying for a low magic campaign a while ago, and the GM and I got into a disagreement when I requested a point buy after rolling a statblock of 13, 14, 11, 10, 8, 8. The GM claimed that point buys hurt non-casters by comparison to dice rolls, while I hold the opinion that point buys are better, since a character with crappy ability scores is going to be overshadowed regularly by someone with better stats, especially in a low magic setting where increasing stats is difficult. Meanwhile, casters only need 1 high stat (casting stat), 1 medium stat (Con for HP), and can live with 8s in other stats (not ideal, of course, but not fatal)

What is the opinion of the Playground on this?

I prefer dice rolling options, point buy just makes the characters feel so cookie cutter generic. I'd even take elite array before point buy if only to make it more interesting as a challenge.

I agree with you that two characters trying to do the exact same thing will perform slightly differently based on statistics, but remember, it's only a +1 bonus per 2 ability points, the gap doesn't widen that much.

I don't think any class is better or worse in terms of how statistics impact them. Everyone needs Con, and they all have a primary stat and a secondary stat apart from that.

Ranking might change depending on what you want to do with the character.

Here's how I'd stat your character depending on class (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha)

Wizard: 8, 11, 13, 14, 8, 10 - I put the 10 in Cha assuming this wizard won't be portrayed as a crotchety jerk
Cleric: 11, 8, 13, 10, 14, 8
Sorcerer: 10, 11, 13, 8, 8, 14
Druid: 8, 10, 13, 11, 14, 8
Bard: 10, 13, 11, 8, 8, 14
Rogue: 10, 14, 13, 11, 8, 8
Monk: 10, 13, 11, 8, 14, 8
Ranger: 14, 10, 11, 8, 13, 8 - melee; swap the dex and str for ranged
Paladin: 13, 8, 11, 8, 10, 14
Barbarian: 14, 11, 13, 8, 8, 10
Fighter: 14, 10, 11, 13, 8, 8 - qualifies for combat expertise, swap int and dex only if you want the dodge tree or str and dex for an archery focus

*saw your next post while typing this, that's rough, doesn't the DMG have re-roll rules if you don't have at least two stats above 13?


This is really the only fair way to do rolling. I've never played a caimpaign where we rolled for stats where there wasn't someone leaps and bounds above other people in ability scores.

I vastly prefer point buy, however.


Who ever said life is fair? Where is that written? Life isn't always fair.

Calvin's dad: The world isn't fair, Calvin.
Calvin: I konw, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?

[Vhaidara]

Rerolls are for no stats above 13.

As far as the stats not making that big of a difference, the problem you run into is them meeting prereqs that you don't. And even if they're only slightly better than you, you're still being outdone at the one thing you do well, by someone who does other things. It's like fighter vs druid, except you can't even bitch about the other guy's class, because he's the same class as you.

As far as the fairness thing, while your quotes are from good sources, that's the point. The real world isn't fair, so why should we have to put up with that BS when we're playing our game in the not real world?

[Jormengand]

My favourite method is to give everyone a high stat (16-18) in whatever ability they choose, then roll the remaining five in order with whatever method you prefer (4d6, drop lowest, for example).

This lets everyone play the class they want (rogue/wizard/fighter etc), but not necessarily the way that they want. I think it encourages more creativity and diversity among the characters.

Cheers,
Kernal

That is the exact opposite of the solution, because it lets all the single-ability-dependent classes win at life whatever they roll, and the multiple ability dependent... well, not.

[VoxRationis]

Do you complain about the unfairness of other people rolling better on attacks and damage than you do?
More to the point, do you demand a point buy combat system?

[Vhaidara]

Do you complain about the unfairness of other people rolling better on attacks and damage than you do?
More to the point, do you demand a point buy combat system?

No, because those are not permanent aspects of your character. Next turn, you get a new attack roll. You never get to replace your ability scores without replacing the character.

[VoxRationis]

But those rolls can make the difference between a character being effective or ineffective, alive or dead. And if you're like me, your attack and skill rolls are subpar just as consistently as your stat rolls.

[Amphetryon]

But those rolls can make the difference between a character being effective or ineffective, alive or dead. And if you're like me, your attack and skill rolls are subpar just as consistently as your stat rolls.

This is only true if you use the first set of attack and skill rolls within a campaign as the only ones you're allowed to reference, gaining a +1 to a single one of those rolls at every 4th level.

In other words, I suspect there's some hyperbole at work here, or you're not understanding the difference between getting a single chance to influence an aspect of a character's effectiveness versus getting a new chance at a different aspect of effectiveness several times per session.

[Vhaidara]

But those rolls can make the difference between a character being effective or ineffective, alive or dead. And if you're like me, your attack and skill rolls are subpar just as consistently as your stat rolls.

Yes, but that could change on any given turn. If you have a terrible statblock, it negatively impacts every single thing you do. If you have a 10 instead of a 16, you are effectively losing 3 points off of every die roll involving that stat. It's like changing your d20 from going 1 through 20 to being -2 through 17.

Further, a bad attack roll won't block your from certain character progressions, such as taking Combat Expertise, or Power Attack, or Dodge, or TWF. Bad stats will.

Bad attack rolls won't make your character more likely to be killed in a single hit. Bad hit point rolls (something else I prefer to do away with) and a bad Con score will.

Bad rolls on skill checks won't lower your skill ranks, preventing you from entering the PrC you wanted to use. A low Int score will prevent you from getting the skill points to meet the prereqs.

Basically, making the character shouldn't be based on chance. Playing them can be.

[ComaVision]

Bad attack rolls won't make your character more likely to be killed in a single hit. Bad hit point rolls (something else I prefer to do away with) and a bad Con score will.

Depends on how your group handles critical fumbles. A member of my current campaign blew himself up for triple damage by rolling a 1. His ability scores were really good, though!

I think I'll put in a house rule in the game I'm DMing that players can just pick their attack rolls, as what would be reasonable for their characters. The chance to miss is clearly unfair and detracts from the game.

[eggynack]

Depends on how your group handles critical fumbles. A member of my current campaign blew himself up for triple damage by rolling a 1. His ability scores were really good, though!

Indeed, critical fumbles are also silly.

[Vhaidara]

Depends on how your group handles critical fumbles. A member of my current campaign blew himself up for triple damage by rolling a 1. His ability scores were really good, though!

Given that any instance of fumbles is the result of a houserule, I would say that has absolutely no application here. Also, that is a really, really stupid extent to take fumbles to.

[Curmudgeon]

Point buy altered by the Tier System for Classes:

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but realistically: just forget it. :smallsigh:
(This assumes you're going to start in your primary class. If you change the primary class in later levels you'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.) You get more points for the classes that are hard to make work otherwise. Spellcasters will still dominate the game, but it happens a few levels later.
7 intervening posts (on the same page), then:

For those who sincerely believe in the tiers, has anyone thought about using stats to try to compensate somewhat?
Yes, I believe this has had some consideration. :smallwink:

[Hanuman]

Do you complain about the unfairness of other people rolling better on attacks and damage than you do?
More to the point, do you demand a point buy combat system?

Jumping a chasm, ducking behind a rock or shield to avoid a breath weapon, these impose elements of risk which are exciting, cinematic and even in defeat you still usually have a good story or character experience even if everyone grieves the death.

When it comes to rolling stats it's much more about being comfortable or not comfortable, and pointbuy assures no drama and everyone likes what they got and what everybody else got.


3.5 Pointbuy is an outdated system, use Pathfinder instead:
http://webpages.charter.net/tedsarah/Pathfinder/utilities/pointBuyCalc.htm

[Story]

What makes PF's pointbuy better than 3.5's?

[Zanos]

What makes PF's pointbuy better than 3.5's?
It's great if you really want to encourage people to have dump stats more than usual.

[Hanuman]

What makes PF's pointbuy better than 3.5's?

Doesn't go below 7 and encourages more balanced characters in a positive way.

[Zanos]

Doesn't go below 7 and encourages more balanced characters in a positive way.
3.5 point buy doesn't go below 8 as far as I've ever played it.

[squiggit]

3.5 point buy doesn't go below 8 as far as I've ever played it.

Being able to decrease your stat to 7 and changing your starting stats from 8 to 10 (and subtracting 12 from relevant PB... so PF point buy is equivalent to 27-37 3.5 PB) is pretty much all Pathfinder changed in that regard.

A lot of people houserule a 3 minimum in a stat as a thing in 3.5 but by the book you can't decrease your stats at all from their starting 8.

[Marlowe]

Doesn't go below 7

Neither does 3.5s.:smallconfused:


and encourages more balanced characters in a positive way.

How so?

EDIT:(|8|)ed

[Zanos]

Being able to decrease your stat to 7 and changing your starting stats from 8 to 10 (and subtracting 12 from relevant PB) is pretty much all Pathfinder changed in that regard.

A lot of people houserule a 3 minimum in a stat as a thing in 3.5 but by the book you can't decrease your stats at all from their starting 8.
The 7 minimum is why I made the comment about PF encouraging dump stats.

[heavyfuel]

As I see it, there are two relatively fair ways to go about stat generation:
Relatively high (32 or thereabouts) point buy for everyone. You can build most any character you want to play. Spellcasters dominate the game as usual.
Point buy altered by the Tier System for Classes:

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but realistically: just forget it. :smallsigh:
(This assumes you're going to start in your primary class. If you change the primary class in later levels you'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.) You get more points for the classes that are hard to make work otherwise. Spellcasters will still dominate the game, but it happens a few levels later.

I really like this idea, but it need to be worked on more I'd say. Losing stats retroactively seem hard to justify in game, and it also hurts Gishes and other MAD mid tiers (like the Crusader) too much for my tastes.

[Zanos]

I really like this idea, but it need to be worked on more I'd say. Losing stats retroactively seem hard to justify in game, and it also hurts Gishes and other MAD mid tiers (like the Crusader) too much for my tastes.
It also does nothing to encourage non-optimal builds for higher tier characters. As has been immortalized by many before me, Player>Build>Class, and if someone comes to your table and wants to play a fireball slinging wizard than they're not going to be particularly happy.

I just encourage ToB at my table and we have a Gentlemen's Agreement and we do pretty well.

[eggynack]

I really like this idea, but it need to be worked on more I'd say. Losing stats retroactively seem hard to justify in game, and it also hurts Gishes and other MAD mid tiers (like the Crusader) too much for my tastes.
Yeah, it's possible that you'd want to enforce coming into games with complete builds, and evaluate the tier of said builds holistically.

[squiggit]

The 7 minimum is why I made the comment about PF encouraging dump stats.

I figured. probably quoted the wrong person. Mentioned the house rule though in response to that since a lot of people seem to think there's no minimum stat in 3.5 PB.


It also does nothing to encourage non-optimal builds for higher tier characters.
This is another thing worth emphasizing. A lot of these solutions do more to encourage extra optimization rather than discouraging it. This came up when discussing low rolled stats with wizards too (where a wizard with medium int and bad physical stats is encouraged to play with saveless BFC and buffs... which is optimal, rather than playing a gish or blaster).

Generally for that reason I find high PB better.

[Curmudgeon]

I really like this idea, but it need to be worked on more I'd say. Losing stats retroactively seem hard to justify in game.
It's a sacrifice, which you can color appropriately to the character. So a character starting as Rogue (for the skill points) and going into Cleric with the Sacred Outlaw multiclassing feat would make a divine sacrifice. A Rogue 3/Cleric 17 (9th-level spells and 10d6 sneak attack) is definitely a top-tier character.

[Blink Knight]

So, I was applying for a low magic campaign a while ago, and the GM and I got into a disagreement when I requested a point buy after rolling a statblock of 13, 14, 11, 10, 8, 8. The GM claimed that point buys hurt non-casters by comparison to dice rolls, while I hold the opinion that point buys are better, since a character with crappy ability scores is going to be overshadowed regularly by someone with better stats, especially in a low magic setting where increasing stats is difficult. Meanwhile, casters only need 1 high stat (casting stat), 1 medium stat (Con for HP), and can live with 8s in other stats (not ideal, of course, but not fatal)

What is the opinion of the Playground on this?

Getting one high stat is easier than several medium-high stats. High PB helps non casters. Low PB or random stats hurts them. Any works for casters.

In short you have both a campaign and a character generation method that says be a caster.

[Vhaidara]

In short you have both a campaign and a character generation method that says be a caster.

I'm sorry, but that jump of logic escapes me. This was a campaign where the most powerful caster available was a paladin

[Blink Knight]

I'm sorry, but that jump of logic escapes me. This was a campaign where the most powerful caster available was a paladin

The irony of low magic is that magic is strongest there, because there's little other magic that opposes it. Meanwhile, low magic items + magic item dependent characters = no.

Now if this only correct option isn't allowed, you probably shouldn't join at all.

[Hanuman]

http://plothook.net/tools/pointbuy.htm

Illustrates buy curves.

[Zanos]

http://plothook.net/tools/pointbuy.htm

Illustrates buy curves.
Would you care to use words, and perhaps even sentences, to describe why you think PF has a point buy system that is better than 3.5? All that link does is show us what they are, and I'm pretty sure everyone participating in the discussion about them already knows what they are.

Also the 3.5 one is inaccurate.

[r2d2go]

I think the problem is more with the fact that casters are strong than the fact that point buy or dice rolls make it worse. That said, I prefer Point Buy, but as long as a DM lets you reroll awful rolls, I dice rolls are fine too.

More specifically to the OP - noncasters are hurt by virtue of being noncasters, not by virtue of having point buy or not point buy.

[squiggit]

http://plothook.net/tools/pointbuy.htm

Illustrates buy curves.

It's also incorrect regarding minimum stats in 3.5 PB


Would you care to use words, and perhaps even sentences, to describe why you think PF has a point buy system that is better than 3.5?

Just trying to guess, but maybe because PF's higher end PB is higher than 3.5's (32 vs 25(effectively 37))?

"More balanced character" I feel is inaccurate though because PF actually rewards you for dumping (2 extra points for taking that 7!).

[Blink Knight]

"More balanced character" I feel is inaccurate though because PF actually rewards you for dumping (2 extra points for taking that 7!).

That and their system hurts you for having several medium stats while rewarding you for one high stat. It is anything but balanced.

[The Insanity]

Poppycock. While obviously six stats can't portray all the strengths and weaknesses one might have, many can be, and low stats provide the roots for in-character weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that your high-Wisdom cleric is oblivious and prone to rash action. But their low Charisma, now that tells you something about them. They might be acerbic, or maybe just withdrawn.
Guess what. With pointbuy you can choose to have low stats to roleplay weaknesses. I wouldn't recommend it, but you can.
Plus what others said.

[r2d2go]

That and their system hurts you for having several medium stats while rewarding you for one high stat. It is anything but balanced.

I'd say it hurts you for having high stats, period. At low points, it's cheaper than 3.5, and it gets steadily worse until it's below 3.5 at a score of 18. However, everyone has a key ability, so they end up forcing you to deal with the cost of one high stat by allowing dump stats.

Honestly, if I were to make a point buy that encouraged equal stats, I'd do something like this:

6: -6 (optional)
7: -5 (optional)
8: -4
9: -2
10: 0
11: 2
12: 4
13: 6
14: 8
15: 11
16: 17
17: 26
18: 36

Works off an 36 point buy. So, 12 is dirt cheap, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 is viable. Taking 16 is not the end of the world, 16, 16, 12, 12, 12, 8 is an option. You can also do 16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 7. Taking 18 makes the rest of your build really tough - at best, your DM lets you take stats at 6 and you can buff Constitution to 16 by dumping everything. If your DM doesn't allow that, you've got at best 14 Con and your a bunch of mediocre stats.

Basically, the idea was to encourage middle stats - 14 and 12 are very cheap, while 16 is doable. Dumping stats is an option, and up to 8 is as efficient as adding stats, but past 8 it gets less efficient and is optionally capped.

[Hanuman]

Data:

6 Attributes * score (Version = PB Usage - Usage%) (Version PB Usage - Usage%)

6 10's (3.5 = 12 - 37%) (PF 0 - 0%)
6 12's (3.5 = 24 - 75%) (PF 12 - 60%)
6 13's (3.5 = 30 - 93%) (PF 18 - 90%)
6 14's (3.5 = 36 - 112%) (PF 30 - 150%)
6 15's (3.5 = 48 - 150%) (PF 42 - 210%)
6 16's (3.5 = 60 - 180%) (PF 60 - 300%)
6 17's (3.5 = 78 - 240%) (PF 78 - 390%)
6 18's (3.5 = 32 - 300%) (PF 102 - 510%)

Arrays Using DND 3.4 32PB and Pathfinder 20PB:
(Note that PF gives +2 average to one stat, so the 3.5 arrays will have on average +2 higher)

3.5 Balanced Array:
13/13/13/13/14/14

PF Balanced Array:
13/13/13/13/13/14

3.5 "High 3 Low 3":
18/16/14/8/8/8

PF "High 3 Low 3"
18/16/14/7/7/7

3.5 "High 2 Balance 4"
16/16/12/12/10/10

PF "High 2 Balance 4"
16/16/10/10/10/10

3.5 "Mid Scale Balance"
12/12/14/14/14/14

PF "Mid Scale Balance"
12/12/13/13/14/14

-------------

Results:

Here's the golden question:
If you were looking to maximize high stats while minimizing drawbacks, what PB system would you choose and why?

[ryu]

I'd say it hurts you for having high stats, period. At low points, it's cheaper than 3.5, and it gets steadily worse until it's below 3.5 at a score of 18. However, everyone has a key ability, so they end up forcing you to deal with the cost of one high stat by allowing dump stats.

Honestly, if I were to make a point buy that encouraged equal stats, I'd do something like this:

6: -6 (optional)
7: -5 (optional)
8: -4
9: -2
10: 0
11: 2
12: 4
13: 6
14: 8
15: 11
16: 17
17: 26
18: 36

Works off an 36 point buy. So, 12 is dirt cheap, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 is viable. Taking 16 is not the end of the world, 16, 16, 12, 12, 12, 8 is an option. You can also do 16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 7. Taking 18 makes the rest of your build really tough - at best, your DM lets you take stats at 6 and you can buff Constitution to 16 by dumping everything. If your DM doesn't allow that, you've got at best 14 Con and your a bunch of mediocre stats.

Basically, the idea was to encourage middle stats - 14 and 12 are very cheap, while 16 is doable. Dumping stats is an option, and up to 8 is as efficient as adding stats, but past 8 it gets less efficient and is optionally capped.

Now that would be a viable thing if their weren't easily workable builds that only cared about one main stat. A druid simply doesn't care about any stat save wis at high level for instance. He can just replace everything else of importance by wildshapeing. Hell if you're willing to put build resources into it most classes that aren't horrible can be made truly single ability dependent.

[Marlowe]

Somebody asked for "words, maybe even sentences". I think I'll ask again.

Also, why would you ever buy multiple 13s in a game where you want even numbers? At least three of those "arrays" are junk data.

EDIT: Directed at Hanuman. Sorry, should have quoted.

[Blink Knight]

I'd say it hurts you for having high stats, period. At low points, it's cheaper than 3.5, and it gets steadily worse until it's below 3.5 at a score of 18. However, everyone has a key ability, so they end up forcing you to deal with the cost of one high stat by allowing dump stats.

Well no.

Compare an 18 and a 14 (rest don't matter).

In 3.5 that's 22 points, so in a low PB that's almost all of them. In PF it would be the same, and would actually be a higher percentage of your overall points except that it lets you put a 7 in a stat you don't care about and get 4 free points (as opposed to taking an 8 and getting no bonus for it). Effectively, an 18 and a 7 costs 13 points, 2 14s cost 10. An 18 and 2 7s cost 9, 3 14s cost 15.

If you went 2 18s and 4 7s that's only 18 points of 15/20/25.
If you went 2 18s and 4 8s in 3.5 that's 32 points of 25/28/32.

[Zanos]

Now that would be a viable thing if their weren't easily workable builds that only cared about one main stat. A druid simply doesn't care about any stat save wis at high level for instance. He can just replace everything else of importance by wildshapeing. Hell if you're willing to put build resources into it most classes that aren't horrible can be made truly single ability dependent.

Druids care about con since it effects their hp. Your point is a good one, though. Most builds function better with one or two high stats than several decent ones.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I've been experimenting with stuff lately, trying to come up with a good hybrid point-buy/rolling system. I don't like pure point buy because the characters are often extremely homogeneous, and I don't like pure rolling because it sucks when someone gets screwed. If I have to pick one, I err on the side of rolling, though.

I've also experimented with global rolling systems, which I kinda like. Sometimes that's doing something for a four-person party like roll 30d6, drop the lowest 6, and arrange the remaining 24 dice into whatever stats you want. With my usual group - all of whom are friends and don't get hung up over who has better stats in a game - I've also rolled 24 individual numbers using the 4d6 drop low method, stuck them in a list and had the players pick the stats they want. I absolutely would never do this with a rando group, but with my players it's been pretty successful the few times I've done it. Lots of negotiation that ends with everyone having stats they're more-or-less happy with.

[ryu]

Druids care about con since it effects their hp. Your point is a good one, though. Most builds function better with one or two high stats than several decent ones.

At high levels no they don't. Not even then. Especially then. Forms of combat that put them in frontliner style danger are obsolete by that point.

[Hanuman]

Somebody asked for "words, maybe even sentences". I think I'll ask again.

Also, why would you ever buy multiple 13s in a game where you want even numbers? At least three of those "arrays" are junk data.
Good point about "why" though I do not agree that odd numbers cannot be worked with, also pertains to the 7's.

People are going to come to their own conclusions, I rather they oppose the numbers than the words.

[eggynack]

At high levels no they don't. Not even then. Especially then. Forms of combat that put them in frontliner style danger are obsolete by that point.
Well, you probably shouldn't run deep into melee combat (though I do like thoon elder brain as a melee/casting split strategy), but that doesn't mean that damage isn't a thing. High HP is a good backup defense to have.


Good point about "why" though I do not agree that odd numbers cannot be worked with, also pertains to the 7's.
7's are fine, because you can't make them 6's. Odd numbers are rarely useful, however, because they have an extremely small number of applications.


People are going to come to their own conclusions, I rather they oppose the numbers than the words.
But I have no idea what I'm supposed to be opposing about the numbers. What point are you trying to make? Numbers are great, but just sticking a bunch of numbers down with no explanation is a bit meaningless.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Somebody asked for "words, maybe even sentences". I think I'll ask again.

Also, why would you ever buy multiple 13s in a game where you want even numbers? At least three of those "arrays" are junk data.

EDIT: Directed at Hanuman. Sorry, should have quoted.

In E6 I do like having the odd random number here or there just so that stat point at 4 feels meaningful. Part of what I don't like about the standard 32-point buy you see in, like, NWN/2 is that that point doesn't have any effect on your character until the next one at 8.

[ryu]

Different campaigns Eggy. At high levels if the opponent somehow managed to damage me the first question to ask is why I'm not dead at the moment. This is true regardless of how much HP the character actually had.

[squiggit]

Druids care about con since it effects their hp. Your point is a good one, though. Most builds function better with one or two high stats than several decent ones.

Con certainly helps. As does Dex for more AC and wisdom for better will (and so on), but there certainly is a degree of diminishing returns there. This theoretical god build wizard who stacks defensive buffs and spams battlefield control will certainly like having more HP, but if he's doing his job right he's probably not gonna really need it. It might save his life, but chances are it's not a huge deal.

That's why I think high PB isn't particularly bad. It does give that dangerous caster more tools, but generally those extra bumps tend to be less important than they are for other classes (or help enable suboptimal builds).

As for odd numbers? Well odds are the triggers for feats. Usually not a big deal but can help a point starved fighter who doesn't want to go over the hurdle into 14 int but needs his feats. Not great, but still.

[Marlowe]

Good point about "why" though I do not agree that odd numbers cannot be worked with, also pertains to the 7's.

People are going to come to their own conclusions, I rather they oppose the numbers than the words.

The "7" are saving points. The multiple 13s are costing points. For no benefit. There is no benefit to having a 13 instead of a 12 EXCEPT for STR (because it improves your carrying capacity).

I can see having an array with one 13, if there was no other way to spend that last point. There is no point to buying two 13s. Buying 4 or 5 13s, as in your first two arrays, is madness.

You say you want people to "oppose" the numbers. The numbers give nothing to "oppose". They certainly don't prove that one system is any more balanced than the other.

They especially don't prove anything if you're going to use numbers that aren't representative of anything a player would pick.

[eggynack]

Different campaigns Eggy. At high levels if the opponent somehow managed to damage me the first question to ask is why I'm not dead at the moment. This is true regardless of how much HP the character actually had.
True enough, I suppose. I'd probably boost constitution some at least some of the time though, because it makes some sense in the context of a character that presumably started at first level, and because there's not much else to do. I guess there's always intelligence and charisma, which become more relevant in the always moderately alright VoP build (words of creation is sweet).



You say you want people to "oppose" the numbers. The numbers give nothing to "oppose". They certainly don't prove that one system is any more balanced than the other.

They especially don't prove anything if you're going to use numbers that aren't representative of anything a player would pick.
Really, what you want to do if you're trying to test the balance of the systems, is run maybe a monk and a wizard through both allocation methods, and see how everything looks. Just making up various arbitrary arrays seems somewhat... arbitrary.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The "7" are saving points. The multiple 13s are costing points. For no benefit. There is no benefit to having a 13 instead of a 12 EXCEPT for STR (because it improves your carrying capacity).

I can see having an array with one 13, if there was no other way to spend that last point. There is no point to buying two 13s. Buying 4 or 5 13s, as in your first two arrays, is madness.

You say you want people to "oppose" the numbers. The numbers give nothing to "oppose". They certainly don't prove that one system is any more balanced than the other.

They especially don't prove anything if you're going to use numbers that aren't representative of anything a player would pick.

That's not altogether true. Many feats require 13+ in particular stats. I mean, clearly you aren't going to raise all your stats to 13 and stop there. But there's also precious little reason to go above 13 Int if all you need is Combat Expertise. The only example that springs to mind right now - it's 5:15 AM my time and I'm watching a Super Mario 64 speedrun - is the Weaponsmaster PrC from Neverwinter Nights 2 (yeah, it's a game and not a tabletop. As I said, it's very early in the morning and I can't remember any of the other examples). Both Dodge and Combat Expertise are prereqs, and it's not out of the question that with a 32 point buy you'd leave Dex and Int at 13 and bump Wis up to 10. If you're planning to use Full Plate, 14 Dex isn't valuable to you, so it's up to you whether you'd prefer +1 skill point/level or +1 Will save.

[Marlowe]

That's not altogether true. Many feats require 13+ in particular stats. I mean, clearly you aren't going to raise all your stats to 13 and stop there. But there's also precious little reason to go above 13 Int if all you need is Combat Expertise. The only example that springs to mind right now - it's 5:15 AM my time and I'm watching a Super Mario 64 speedrun - is the Weaponsmaster PrC from Neverwinter Nights 2 (yeah, it's a game and not a tabletop. As I said, it's very early in the morning and I can't remember any of the other examples). Both Dodge and Combat Expertise are prereqs, and it's not out of the question that with a 32 point buy you'd leave Dex and Int at 13 and bump Wis up to 10. If you're planning to use Full Plate, 14 Dex isn't valuable to you, so it's up to you whether you'd prefer +1 skill point/level or +1 Will save.

Fair enough, although my own attitude is that if qualifying for a PrC or feat knobbles my basic statline so much it had better be very. Very. Very good indeed.

However...
clearly you aren't going to raise all your stats to 13 and stop there. is almost precisely what his first two two arrays did.

[VoxRationis]

Guess what. With pointbuy you can choose to have low stats to roleplay weaknesses. I wouldn't recommend it, but you can.
Plus what others said.

First: Very few people would do that. The concept of restricting anything, especially a character's power, is anathema to gamers in general and Playgrounders in particular.
Second: With point buy, having low stats inherently means the character has a higher stat elsewhere. That's not a role-playing hook, that's min-maxing. With rolls, a low (or high) stat in Strength has no effect on your cleric's Wisdom.

[Amphetryon]

First: Very few people would do that. The concept of restricting anything, especially a character's power, is anathema to gamers in general and Playgrounders in particular.
Second: With point buy, having low stats inherently means the character has a higher stat elsewhere. That's not a role-playing hook, that's min-maxing. With rolls, a low (or high) stat in Strength has no effect on your cleric's Wisdom.

I'd like to see the data which led you to the conclusion of "very few people would do that" [choose a low stat]. I'd especially like to see what percentages you think constitute "very few," and how that compares against the oft-cited notion on various forums, including this one, that one should use point buy to start with a 16+ in your primary stat and a 14+ in CON.

[Jormengand]

Second: With point buy, having low stats inherently means the character has a higher stat elsewhere. That's not a role-playing hook, that's min-maxing. With rolls, a low (or high) stat in Strength has no effect on your cleric's Wisdom.

8/14/14/14/15/14 is a perfectly valid 32 PB stat-line, and I dare you to tell me it's min-maxing.

[Marlowe]

8/14/14/14/15/14 is a perfectly valid 32 PB stat-line, and I dare you to tell me it's min-maxing.

heh. I had a key NPC once with that statline. A Bard.

I named him Quattro Vierzehn and was rather disappointed nobody asked why.:smallsmile:

[r2d2go]

Now that would be a viable thing if their weren't easily workable builds that only cared about one main stat. A druid simply doesn't care about any stat save wis at high level for instance. He can just replace everything else of importance by wildshapeing. Hell if you're willing to put build resources into it most classes that aren't horrible can be made truly single ability dependent.

As mostly stated - there are certainly other stats people care about. I think Druid is in a unique position to not care about anything else due to wildshaping, and even he might want skillpoints. Cha-SAD paladins still want Con (unless they're somehow a Dry Lich), Str-SAD damage fighters still want Con, Int/Wis/Cha-SAD casters except for druid still want Con. That's why the system I put up jumps so high for an 18 in an ability - so that you can't have an 18 without tanking everything else. That's also why I made the -5 and -6 optional - if the DM really wants to make an 18 a drawback, they can only allow -8 and thus make it impossible to hit 16 Con even dumping everything. The 5 and 6 are not tied, by the way, it's intended to have flexibility. You can still easily hit 14 Con with only 8, though... so that said, I think I'll nerf dumpstats.

Even so, your Druid is going to die frequently before 7th level or so, because he can't safely drop out of wildshape for fear of getting one-hitted in the surprise round. And even after that, you just crippled his shaping utility, so he's going to really questions turning into a giant bat and swooping to catch his ally if it means he'll be extremely vulnerable for several hours. Until you hit 14th level, where you can go the whole day minus sleeping in one wildshape and thus have 4 extra for utility, you're taking significant penalties for taking that 18. And at that point, your other caster classes are using stupidly powerful stuff like Limited Wish.

Okay. Reviewing it (since the first one was something I just threw out really fast):

8: -1
10: 0
12: 1
13: 2
14: 3
15: 5
16: 8
17: 15
18: 23

Works off an 18 point buy. Yes, this means getting 18 requires dumping five abilities. This is intentional - your SAD caster is not getting their 14 Con. Here's some builds you can do, though:

Edit: These are all 18 points in this system. Added comparison to PF and 3.5.

18, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8: 16 in 3.5 (50%), 7 in PF (28%)
17, 12, 12, 12, 12, 8: 29 in 3.5 (90.6%), 19 in PF (76%)
17, 14, 10, 10, 10, 10: 27 in 3.5 (84%), 18 in PF (72%)
16, 16, 12, 12, 12, 8: 32 in 3.5 (100%), 24 in PF (96%)
16, 15, 14, 14, 10, 8: 36 in 3.5 (112.5%), 25 in PF (100%)
16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12: 35 in 3.5 (109.4%), 27 in PF (108%)
14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14: 36 in 3.5 (112.5%), 30 in PF (120%)

As you can see, this works out to about the same or a bit cheaper if you don't take 17 or 18, while taking 17 or 18 starts tanking your other stats. the idea was to encourage middle stats - 14 and 12 are very cheap, while 16 is doable. Dumping stats is only vaguely an option, taking 18 is very difficult.

A quick note, though: This isn't a fix for D&D, this is a slight adjustment. Casters are still going to wreck with 1 less on their casting modifier, monks are still going to fall on their face even with alleviated MAD. However, this heavily discourages SAD and makes MAD much more viable. What do people think?

[Zanos]

Improving your con score by wildshaping doesn't grant you more HP. Druids should care about con, unless you're playing in a caimpaign where everything does so much damage that if you get hit at all you're dead.

[r2d2go]

Improving your con score by wildshaping doesn't grant you more HP. Druids should care about con, unless you're playing in a caimpaign where everything does so much damage that if you get hit at all you're dead.

...huh. Didn't see the part that says "with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution." I guess that argument against my system is invalid anyway then :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

For a throwaway character, to be used for 1-3 sessions and discarded, I see the attraction of dice rolling.

But for longer campaigns where the players are invested in their PCs, dice rolling is just as likely to harm role-playing as help. But the bad part here is that if it hampers role-playing, it is likely to do so in the same way over and over again, to the point of being very tedious.

[Jormengand]

...huh. Didn't see the part that says "with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution." I guess that argument against my system is invalid anyway then :smallbiggrin:

Well, because of the way that losing your CON increase works, you may die when you inevitably stop being the bear.

[Chronos]

It's simply not true that people will refuse to voluntarily take penalties. My most recent character, for instance, I made a point of dumping Wis as far as I could. I did this because my concept for the character required him to be hopelessly naive and oblivious to some really obvious things. Now, granted, because I was using a point buy system, this meant that my other stats were a bit higher... But I would have taken that Wis dump no matter what system I was using. And honestly, it didn't really help my other stats that much: Those points I dumped out of Wis effectively ended up going into Str, which has very little use for a gnome warlock. Mechanically, I would almost certainly have been better off with the higher Will saves, Spot, and Listen than with the higher carrying capacity.

[Shining Wrath]

I feel that the more high-op the game, the more you need point buy.

If everyone's playing all the tricks they can to maximize power, and the wizard is starting with 18-16-16-14-12-10 while the druid is starting with 15-12-11-10-8-8, the druid is going to be overshadowed pretty badly.

If everyone's doing a medium range of optimization the druid will still be a bear riding a bear summoning bears.

I haven't crunched the numbers on this, but I think the following generation method would allow for randomness generation with a smaller variance:
Use an imaginary 4th die that always rolls "4".
Roll 3 d6 6 times. If a roll on the 3 d6 totals 3 or 4, reroll. Otherwise, you may exchange the imaginary "4" for any single die.
You should now have 6 rolls between 8 and 18, but with a lower chance of 17 or 18 than you'd get with 4d6 choose best 3.

[r2d2go]

Well, because of the way that losing your CON increase works, you may die when you inevitably stop being the bear.

Yeah, I always thought it was like Rage - you get extra HP, but you gotta watch out or you'll die when you stop Shaping.

Anyway, edited the alternate system notes, adding more builds and comparisons to PF and 3.5.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, I always thought it was like Rage - you get extra HP, but you gotta watch out or you'll die when you stop Shaping.

I'm pretty sure that is how it works, like with other temporary CON increases.

[Dalebert]

Roll 3 d6 6 times. If a roll on the 3 d6 totals 3 or 4, reroll. Otherwise, you may exchange the imaginary "4" for any single die.
You should now have 6 rolls between 8 and 18, but with a lower chance of 17 or 18 than you'd get with 4d6 choose best 3.

First off, I think leaving out 3s and 4s makes the rolls more swingy toward the low and high ends and less toward the average. The replacement 4 then helps bump you up into average if you do roll low. Also, I believe the range would be 6 to 18 because the possibility of 1, 1, 4 remains which would be 6. Lastly, an easier way would be to roll 3d4, then 3s become 5s and 4s become 6s. No re-rolling needed.

I'm normally pretty good with probability and statistics but I have to be honest that I'm not sure I follow what your goal is. Without the optional 4, it would be more swingy in both directions but then the replacement 4 seems to counter low scores and means it would just be more swingy toward the high end. It seems unnecessarily complicated. If you want more swingy toward high-end, just stick with 4d6, drop the lowest.

[Jermz]

Also the 3.5 one is inaccurate.

I know this is a few pages back, but pardon my ignorance - why is this calculator inaccurate for 3.5? If this has been answered since, I'd be happy to be directed to the source.

[maniacalmojo]

I played a Bard one time and my rolls were 16,16,16,17,18,18. The 18 went in charisma and intelligence the 17 in dex and everything else was a 16. I got my UMD high and bought a few wands and was a better caster then the casters in the party, the best skill monkey and i built him to be a frontline fighter so i handled myself up front as well.

[Marlowe]

I know this is a few pages back, but pardon my ignorance - why is this calculator inaccurate for 3.5? If this has been answered since, I'd be happy to be directed to the source. It's because it allows you to drop your starting 8s back to 7s to save a point--which by the 3.5 book you may not do.

Evidently, that particular calculator was done by a PF player and just didn't care.


I played a Bard one time and my rolls were 16,16,16,17,18,18. The 18 went in charisma and intelligence the 17 in dex and everything else was a 16. I got my UMD high and bought a few wands and was a better caster then the casters in the party, the best skill monkey and i built him to be a frontline fighter so i handled myself up front as well.

Rolled up a Xan Yae Cleric once with 18, 18, 16, 14, 17, 10 (in that order). Trickery and War domains.

The Knight and the Rogue were not happy.

[Larrx]

This thread has actually changed my mind about how character creation should work. I love it when that happens.

I remember when generating a character started with 3d6 in order (yes, I'm old). Rolling stats determined who you were playing. You were born with certain talents and advantages. From there, the player decide what that guy or girl would have done. Maybe they would have pursued a career as an arcane caster, a rogue, or a warrior. If the rolled stats were very good, then maybe a paladin or bard was an option. Exciting! Maybe you would go against type and make a character with a fatal weakness. You took the structure you were given and made the best you could of it. Like a haiku. It was fun.

The nature of role-playing changed at some point. It became more about fully realizing a character. Character death, and even the simple destruction of equipment, was less palatable. Point buy seemed reasonable. It allowed everyone to create exactly who they wanted, while maintaining fairness.

But of course DnD is inherently unfair. The druid is always going to be more capable than the monk, regardless of point buy. (I would like to pause here and say that Curmudgeon's ideas for tier based point buys are interesting in this regard, and that I acknowledge that s/he's smarter than I am). So why did we start allowing point buy in the first place? So that people could make the character that they wanted to roleplay? So why the half measure?

At least two previous posters (I apologize for not remembering the names) have suggested allowing players to simply choose starting stats, and that's now how I believe that character generation should be done. Rolling, and figuring out what your character would have become, is fun. Deciding what your stats are to make your character be what you want them to be is fun. Point buys seem almost . . . anachronistic to me at this point.

Thanks to everyone who posted in this thread!

[Vhaidara]

Rolling, and figuring out what your character would have become, is fun. Deciding what your stats are to make your character be what you want them to be is fun. Point buys seem almost . . . anachronistic to me at this point.

I think point buy is the middle ground. It lets you mostly construct the character you want while limiting you. It's sometimes hard to trust people you don't really know, and some people (I am one of them) have a hard time restraining themselves when they have anything less than an idea with very specific goals in mind.

That said, I'm going to suggest this method to my IRL group when I get back to college.

Also, I'm actually quite happy with how this thread has gone.

[Amphetryon]

First off, I think leaving out 3s and 4s makes the rolls more swingy toward the low and high ends and less toward the average. The replacement 4 then helps bump you up into average if you do roll low. Also, I believe the range would be 6 to 18 because the possibility of 1, 1, 4 remains which would be 6. Lastly, an easier way would be to roll 3d4, then 3s become 5s and 4s become 6s. No re-rolling needed.

I'm normally pretty good with probability and statistics but I have to be honest that I'm not sure I follow what your goal is. Without the optional 4, it would be more swingy in both directions but then the replacement 4 seems to counter low scores and means it would just be more swingy toward the high end. It seems unnecessarily complicated. If you want more swingy toward high-end, just stick with 4d6, drop the lowest.
I think you're misinterpreting what Shining Wrath meant by "leaving out 3s and 4s."


If a roll on the 3 d6 totals 3 or 4, reroll Emphasis mine. That reads to me as rerolling all 1s/all 1s but for a single 2.

[Jormengand]

I think you're misinterpreting what Shining Wrath meant by "leaving out 3s and 4s."

Emphasis mine. That reads to me as rerolling all 1s/all 1s but for a single 2.

Though, the reverse of what he thought he meant, removing all 1s and 6s (or essentially rolling 3d4+3) could be an interesting way of generating stats, if you were being silly and rolling for some reason.

[Dalebert]

I think you're misinterpreting what Shining Wrath meant by "leaving out 3s and 4s."

Emphasis mine. That reads to me as rerolling all 1s/all 1s but for a single 2.

You're right. That was sloppy reading on my part. Makes my entire post pointless. DERP! Sorry, Shining Wrath.

[eggynack]

Well, because of the way that losing your CON increase works, you may die when you inevitably stop being the bear.
That seems very much unlikely, given that wild shaping into a creature has no impact on HP. I don't really see why turning back would have an impact on your HP as a result. It's not like you're losing something that's giving you a bunch of HP, after all.

I'm pretty sure that is how it works, like with other temporary CON increases.
It definitely doesn't work in that manner, at least. The extra HP part is incorrect just at the outset.

[Hanuman]

Note that R2D2go's data uses 25pb for pathfinder which is a few points higher than the 32 3.5 pb relatively.


Fair enough, although my own attitude

Data represents the relationship of the curves.

Odd numbers can be improved permanently, such as at every 4th level and with tomes as well as items like cloak of charisma.

7's are both a benefit and a penalty for going low, you do not have to use it but it is there.

[eggynack]

Odd numbers can be improved permanently, such as at every 4th level and with tomes as well as items like cloak of charisma.
Well, probably not the cloak, because you'd need custom item rules for a +1 bonus, but in the other cases, sure. The issue is that you have six 13's in one of your arrays, which is absolutely ridiculous, even with those factors allowing for odd numbers. One or two, maybe, but an all odd array is just unlikely.

[questionmark693]

I saw somebody suggest this on the board, I believe it was Emperor Tippy-give everybody six eighteens before racial modifiers. The reasoning being that, as as been noticed, casters really only need the one good stat, so this does a lot more to help the MAD non-casters than it does to help the casters. And it lends credence to the idea that your players are heroes because they are the best of the best. Not suitable for every single campaign, to be sure, but in the campaigns I tend to run, it works well.

[Zanos]

Note that R2D2go's data uses 25pb for pathfinder which is a few points higher than the 32 3.5 pb relatively.



Data represents the relationship of the curves.

Odd numbers can be improved permanently, such as at every 4th level and with tomes as well as items like cloak of charisma.

7's are both a benefit and a penalty for going low, you do not have to use it but it is there.
Adding all of your stat increases and getting a +5 tome actually gets you an even increase by level 20. +5 tome and +5 from levelups. All other ability score increases are even.

Of course you could argue that games don't go to level 20, in which case having an odd stat just means you'll have a 1 lower modifier than you would otherwise most of the time.

[Dalebert]

I did an experiment to sort of test out my idea about having all the players roll 2 or 3 sets of stats (I'm leaning toward 2 with me also rolling 2 times), and then letting them pick from the sets of stats in order of weakest tier to strongest. The idea here is to introduce some organic feel that you get from rolling while ensuring that no one gets stuck with crappy stats. Here are some samples if you care to see. I sorted the columns from highest totals to lowest.
http://i.imgur.com/0uTeaGv.png

There are four players, so if I let them roll 3 times, it would be 12 sets. If we all (me included) roll 2 times, it would be 10 sets. Those are already pretty decent stats and I'm kind of leaning toward the 3d6, re-roll 1s option. I like the idea of people being able to have an 18 in their primary stat so I'm thinking I might also allow them to move 2 points with the caveat that they can not make anything higher than 18 before racial adjustments.

I like this idea so much that I'm thinking of coming up with an elaborate adventure to actually implement it retroactively in my game in a way that sort of warns the characters and gives them the option. However, it would have to be the whole party. It would be like "If you go on this adventure, it could change you in dramatic ways!" or "Potential for great rewards comes with great risks" or something like that.

[Shining Wrath]

First off, I think leaving out 3s and 4s makes the rolls more swingy toward the low and high ends and less toward the average. The replacement 4 then helps bump you up into average if you do roll low. Also, I believe the range would be 6 to 18 because the possibility of 1, 1, 4 remains which would be 6. Lastly, an easier way would be to roll 3d4, then 3s become 5s and 4s become 6s. No re-rolling needed.

I'm normally pretty good with probability and statistics but I have to be honest that I'm not sure I follow what your goal is. Without the optional 4, it would be more swingy in both directions but then the replacement 4 seems to counter low scores and means it would just be more swingy toward the high end. It seems unnecessarily complicated. If you want more swingy toward high-end, just stick with 4d6, drop the lowest.

If the TOTAL is 3 or 4; that is, you rolled 1+1+1 or 1+1+2.

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[Angelalex242]

What about:

You get 18s in stats you need. You gets 12s in stats you don't need.

You only 'need' a stat if you have a class ability based on it.

And Melee classes automatically 'need' STR and CON.

A Wizard only 'needs' one stat. Paladins and Monks and Rangers, however, need more...

[Vhaidara]

What about:

You get 18s in stats you need. You gets 12s in stats you don't need.

You only 'need' a stat if you have a class ability based on it.

And Melee classes automatically 'need' STR and CON.

A Wizard only 'needs' one stat. Paladins and Monks and Rangers, however, need more...

Because that shuts down non-optimal caster builds, like gishing.

Also, that prevents fighters from accessing archery, dodge, combat expertise, combat focus, or intimidate feat chains.

Also, Ranger has no class features based off of Dex. Neither do Monks.

Rogue ends up in a really weird spot.

I honestly feel straight 18s for everyone is better. Though for this it should at least be 18s and 13s (prerequisites love the number 13)

[TheIronGolem]

What about:

You get 18s in stats you need. You gets 12s in stats you don't need.

You only 'need' a stat if you have a class ability based on it.

And Melee classes automatically 'need' STR and CON.

A Wizard only 'needs' one stat. Paladins and Monks and Rangers, however, need more...

What about Fighters?

[Angelalex242]

Monks and Rangers are assumed to need Dex.

Fighter/Barb are STR/CON

Ranger/Monk STR/DEX/CON/WIS

Paladin STR/CON/WIS/CHA

Rogue DEX INT

Wizard INT

Cleric, Druid WIS

Sorc, Bard CHA

[Shining Wrath]

You could do 5 18's, 1 8.
What's your weak point?

[ryu]

You could do 5 18's, 1 8.
What's your weak point?

Unless it's actively being made the core of the build CHA is usually least useful. This is barring classes that have tertiary features based on it.

[Vhaidara]

Monks and Rangers are assumed to need Dex.

Fighter/Barb are STR/CON

Ranger/Monk STR/DEX/CON/WIS

Paladin STR/CON/WIS/CHA

Rogue DEX INT

Wizard INT

Cleric, Druid WIS

Sorc, Bard CHA

Okay, so...
Fighters are unable to go into the Combat Expertise, Combat Focus, Dodge, or Point Blank Shot feat chains. You have the option of ubercharging, and that's all.

Rogue has no option to go for social skills, and feinting is weaker.

Fighters, Paladins, Clerics and Sorcerers are hurting for skill points.

Any kind of combat bard is severely weakened

Casters now are unable to play gishes (except druid, since who cares about physical stats when you have wild shape), but are even better at firing off a Save or Lose every turn since they are guaranteed their good stat.

[Hazrond]

Monks and Rangers are assumed to need Dex.

Fighter/Barb are STR/CON

Ranger/Monk STR/DEX/CON/WIS

Paladin STR/CON/WIS/CHA

Rogue DEX INT

Wizard INT

Cleric, Druid WIS

Sorc, Bard CHA I would argue bards need dex too

[Angelalex242]

What's your weak point, by class:

Paladin:Int, most likely. Sir Idiot Strikes Again
Sorcerer:Str. Why do I need that stick anyway?
Bard:Str. That's what rapiers and finesse are for
Every other class:Cha. Because Charisma is irrelevant for classes that don't need it.
Some clerics may choose to dump STR instead so they can focus on turning.

[Anlashok]

What's your weak point, by class:

Paladin:Int, most likely. Sir Idiot Strikes Again
Sorcerer:Str. Why do I need that stick anyway?
Bard:Str. That's what rapiers and finesse are for
Every other class:Cha. Because Charisma is irrelevant for classes that don't need it.
Some clerics may choose to dump STR instead so they can focus on turning.

So no gishes. No Zhentarims. No strength rogues or archer fighters.

Yeah I can see why that's healthy.

[r2d2go]

No comments on my proposed alternative? I would think it'd at least get some protest. Oh well.

Anyway, the "relevant ability" thing might work, but you'd have to refine it. If you just make it a blanket statement, you restrict classes and give some classes unneeded boosts - for example, Paladin needs Wis for casting, Cha for a whole pile of things, Str for melee attacks, and Con for health as a melee fighter. Fighter, on the other hand, just gets Str and Con (+maybe Dex). Is that fair? Not really, Fighter is already screwed.

I would do two things - one, grant total stats based on tier system, and two, allow some flexibility within the system. For example, Wizard gets to choose between 18 Int and 8 everywhere else, or 16 Int and 12 everywhere else. Fighter, on the other hand, gets 18 Con, chooses between 18 Dex and 18 Str, and 14 everywhere else. Of course these are just random numbers I threw out, so you'd need something more precisely balanced, but that's the idea.

[TheIronGolem]

What's your weak point, by class:

Paladin:Int, most likely. Sir Idiot Strikes Again
Sorcerer:Str. Why do I need that stick anyway?
Bard:Str. That's what rapiers and finesse are for
Every other class:Cha. Because Charisma is irrelevant for classes that don't need it.
Some clerics may choose to dump STR instead so they can focus on turning.

This is dangerously close to "You have to play your class stereotype".

[Angelalex242]

No, it's just a sad truth that nobody except 3 (and a half, counting clerics) classes needs charisma.

And of the classes that need charisma, two of them can safely dump str.

The Paladin is left with the unpalatable choice of being Sir Idiot or Sir Clumsy.

Which is why I made 'not necessary' stats 12.

[Zanos]

No, it's just a sad truth that nobody except 3 (and a half, counting clerics) classes needs charisma.

And of the classes that need charisma, two of them can safely dump str.

The Paladin is left with the unpalatable choice of being Sir Idiot or Sir Clumsy.

Which is why I made 'not necessary' stats 12.
I actually prefer decent charisma on my wizards so I don't have a penalty to my checks to convince bound creatures to be my servants.

[r2d2go]

No, it's just a sad truth that nobody except 3 (and a half, counting clerics) classes needs charisma.

And of the classes that need charisma, two of them can safely dump str.

The Paladin is left with the unpalatable choice of being Sir Idiot or Sir Clumsy.

Which is why I made 'not necessary' stats 12.

Many, maybe even most Cleric builds use charisma for Turning - not as Turn Undead, but as for fuel for a variety of abilities. It's very important, often more central to a build than Wisdom.

Rogues with a side of Diplomancer need Cha.

Intimidate Fighters need Cha.

I would avoid forcing a specific build.

[Angelalex242]

There's nothing a rogue can do as a diplomancer the bard doesn't do better.

As for intimidate...you don't get XP for making things run away.

"I made the enemies run away!"

DM: Good job. You watch your XP fleeing north.

[r2d2go]

There's nothing a rogue can do as a diplomancer the bard doesn't do better.

As for intimidate...you don't get XP for making things run away.

"I made the enemies run away!"

DM: Good job. You watch your XP fleeing north.

I did say "with a side of diplomancer", so really it's skill points and a few thousand gold investment. So Rogue gets it for basically free on top of his build.

Actually, you get half XP, and you also impose serious penalties for running. Like, "my ranged allies can now shoot you down without fear of retaliation" penalties.

[Zanos]

There's nothing a rogue can do as a diplomancer the bard doesn't do better.

As for intimidate...you don't get XP for making things run away.

"I made the enemies run away!"

DM: Good job. You watch your XP fleeing north.
You don't get experience awards for killing things. You get them for overcoming challenges. Making your enemies run from you overcomes the challenge, so you get the full experience award.

[squiggit]

There's nothing a rogue can do as a diplomancer the bard doesn't do better.
And? That doesn't change the fact that it's a common build choice.


As for intimidate...you don't get XP for making things run away.
First of all. Do you know how demoralization works? You intimidate to inflict big penalties on your opponents. Even ignoring that...


"I made the enemies run away!"

DM: Good job. You watch your XP fleeing north.
You get XP for completing an encounter. Forcing everyone to surrender or retreat is perfectly valid.

[Vhaidara]

There's nothing a rogue can do as a diplomancer the bard doesn't do better.

There's nothing a fighter does that a wizard/druid doesn't do better. So why should fighters get good stats in anything?

And the other stats should be 13, not 12, to meet prereqs for about half of the feats in the game. With your set up...

Melees are all uberchargers (seriously, build me a fighter under your rules that does anything but attack in melee)
Rogues are exclusively trapmonkeys
Bards only get to do diplomancy
Casters still outdo everyone at everything, and the casters that didn't outdo everyone at everything are now significantly worse

[r2d2go]

Wait, you get full EXP? Maybe half was a houserule... eh.

[Story]

No, it's just a sad truth that nobody except 3 (and a half, counting clerics) classes needs charisma.

Challenge accepted

Sorceror, Bard, Warmage, Binder, Marshall, Wilder

borderline cases: Shadowcaster, Artificer, Cleric, Paladin, Soulborn

Those are just the ones I can think of offhand.

[Vhaidara]

Wait, you get full EXP? Maybe half was a houserule... eh.

I think RAW is you get half, but that's stupid, since you still defeated the encounter. But it seems WotC likes punishing efficiency.

EDIT: Story, he's only concerned with Core

[Blink Knight]

I don't think this addresses the MAD problem but I'm considering revamping the stat system as follows:

Your maximum stat before racial bonuses is 9 (or 10).
Your stat bonus is = your stat - 5.
Stat bonus items give 1-3, and cost 4k squared.
You still gain one level up point per 4 levels, but cannot pick the same stat twice consecutively.

This does slightly help MAD characters by letting them boost a second stat naturally but mostly it just removes the illusion of granularity. I suppose you could make odd stats actually do something instead but that'd require a more extensive revamp. Balance wise the best solution is a 32 PB or higher since any SAD character is going to stop getting any practical benefit from a better stat array at or before that point.

[r2d2go]

I don't think this addresses the MAD problem but I'm considering revamping the stat system as follows:

Your maximum stat before racial bonuses is 9 (or 10).
Your stat bonus is = your stat - 5.
Stat bonus items give 1-3, and cost 4k squared.
You still gain one level up point per 4 levels, but cannot pick the same stat twice consecutively.

This does slightly help MAD characters by letting them boost a second stat naturally but mostly it just removes the illusion of granularity. I suppose you could make odd stats actually do something instead but that'd require a more extensive revamp. Balance wise the best solution is a 32 PB or higher since any SAD character is going to stop getting any practical benefit from a better stat array at or before that point.

That could work (in fact I made a little board game I play with friends using 4e power cards that uses something like that), but I think revamping the bonus system messes with several things, especially things that base off of score and not bonus.

[Blink Knight]

That could work (in fact I made a little board game I play with friends using 4e power cards that uses something like that), but I think revamping the bonus system messes with several things, especially things that base off of score and not bonus.

The only thing I can think of is prerequisites. Or enemy stats. Both of which translate perfectly once you half them and round down.

[r2d2go]

The only thing I can think of is prerequisites. Or enemy stats. Both of which translate perfectly once you half them and round down.

Also ability to cast spells and some bonuses (Draconic Might), but you can probably halve and round down.

Edit: Nevermind, Draconic Might is nerfed to +4 in Spell Compedium. I think there's still a few things out there though...

[Blink Knight]

Also ability to cast spells and some bonuses (Draconic Might), but you can probably halve and round down.

Edit: Nevermind, Draconic Might is nerfed to +4 in Spell Compedium. I think there's still a few things out there though...

Barring heavy use of ability damage is anyone going to willingly make a caster with a primary stat low enough that that would actually matter? There also are not that many things that deal mental stat damage.

[Angelalex242]

There's a thread on page 1 looking for ways to deal charisma damage/drain...

Presumably because some GM is sick of a 18/18/18/18/18/6 Barbarian :P

[Story]

Other things that deal with odd bonuses

Extract Gift, level up bonuses, inherent bonuses, ability damage

There's also that one mage hand vestige power, but that was almost certainly a mistake

[Vogonjeltz]

There's nothing a fighter does that a wizard/druid doesn't do better. So why should fighters get good stats in anything?

And the other stats should be 13, not 12, to meet prereqs for about half of the feats in the game. With your set up...

Melees are all uberchargers (seriously, build me a fighter under your rules that does anything but attack in melee)
Rogues are exclusively trapmonkeys
Bards only get to do diplomancy
Casters still outdo everyone at everything, and the casters that didn't outdo everyone at everything are now significantly worse

Fighters have an innate advantage on Wizards/Druids at grappling, seeing through feints, intimidation, disarming, grabbing items, mounted combat, sundering items, two weapon fighting, archery, and situationally the other combat actions (if they happen to pick up the right feats).

All of these things are BAB dependent.* intimidate is a class skill

[Vhaidara]

Fighters have an innate advantage on Wizards/Druids at grappling, seeing through feints, intimidation, disarming, grabbing items, mounted combat, sundering items, two weapon fighting, archery, and situationally the other combat actions (if they happen to pick up the right feats).

All of these things are BAB dependent.* intimidate is a class skill

Between Polymorph/Wild Shape + animal companion, I'm giving the grapple to the Wizard/Druid

The fact that, for these characters, the fighter has straight 12s except for Str and Con, the Wizard is more likely to take Improved Disarm.

Again, because of the stats, the Fighter is garbage at TWF and Archery.

I might actually argue the Intimidate point because of Polymorph as well, because of size increases

[ryu]

Fighters have an innate advantage on Wizards/Druids at grappling, seeing through feints, intimidation, disarming, grabbing items, mounted combat, sundering items, two weapon fighting, archery, and situationally the other combat actions (if they happen to pick up the right feats).

All of these things are BAB dependent.* intimidate is a class skill

Excuse me? I'd take this right now, but I think it'd be rude to Eggy.

[Blink Knight]

Other things that deal with odd bonuses

Extract Gift, level up bonuses, inherent bonuses, ability damage

There's also that one mage hand vestige power, but that was almost certainly a mistake

I mentioned level up bonuses. Inherent could get halved. Ability damage, same.


Fighters have an innate advantage on Wizards/Druids at grappling, seeing through feints, intimidation, disarming, grabbing items, mounted combat, sundering items, two weapon fighting, archery, and situationally the other combat actions (if they happen to pick up the right feats).

All of these things are BAB dependent.* intimidate is a class skill

Most of those also require a 13 in a stat that isn't Str or Con.

[r2d2go]

Well, Blink, I think at this point it's just a bunch of little things that make halving a little questionable. There's obviously not much weight to any given thing, and obviously quite a few little things. However, I'd say it's preferable to build around the modifier system instead of exchanging it for a new one - less modification needed. Also, rounding down weakens/skews some things, making inherent bonuses out of reach for longer and making ability damage weaker. It'd probably work, but there's a lot of little things that'd slow down processing and potentially mess with balance/builds.

Edit: Also Druid gets Kelpstrand, my favorite way to grapple ever :smallbiggrin: Druid is a far better grappler than Fighter, maybe better than Wizard just for that spell.

[Chronos]

If we're going to say that a class "needs" a stat if they have a class feature based on it, then both rangers and druids need Charisma, for Wild Empathy. I've previously gone through the list of what stats class features are actually based on, and it's pretty surprising:
Barbarians are Con-based. Their rage duration is based on Con; nothing is based on anything else.
Fighters... Well, their only class feature is feats, and the feats they can get with those class features can require a minimum Str, Dex, Int, or Wis. No Con or Cha, though (at least not in core).
Paladins are Wis and Cha-based, for spellcasting and for most of their other abilities.
Rangers are Wis and Cha-based: Wis is their spellcasting, of course, and also they have an ability that's based on a Wis-based skill (Track and Survival). Cha is for Wild Empathy.
Monks are Wis-based, no surprise. But no Dex, Str, or Con.
Rogues are purely Int-based. Skill Mastery is based on Int mod, and they have an ability (Trapfinding) that's based on two Int-based skills (Search and Disable Device). No Dex or Cha.
Bards are Cha and Int-based. Int for Bardic Lore, Cha for everything else.
Clerics are Wis and Cha. Wis for spells, Cha for turning.
Druids are Wis and Cha. Wis for spells, and Cha for Wild Empathy
Wizards are Int, no surprise.
Sorcerers are Cha, no surprise.

[Blink Knight]

Well, Blink, I think at this point it's just a bunch of little things that make halving a little questionable. There's obviously not much weight to any given thing, and obviously quite a few little things. However, I'd say it's preferable to build around the modifier system instead of exchanging it for a new one - less modification needed. Also, rounding down weakens/skews some things, making inherent bonuses out of reach for longer and making ability damage weaker. It'd probably work, but there's a lot of little things that'd slow down processing and potentially mess with balance/builds.

Edit: Also Druid gets Kelpstrand, my favorite way to grapple ever :smallbiggrin: Druid is a far better grappler than Fighter, maybe better than Wizard just for that spell.

But it is the modifier system. Someone with a 24 in a stat has +7. A 12 in that system also gives a +7. But extra points always increase the modifier instead of having those useless odd numbers.

Inherent bonuses aren't even something you get in the typical level range. They are also something that when you do get them you go straight for +5 and skip every step in between because of the facepalm worthy decision to make it so that inherent bonuses do not stack with themselves and +1 and +1 =/= +2. Making them range from 1-3 actually makes them slightly better. Ability damage would end up about the same if you half it.

[r2d2go]

But it is the modifier system. Someone with a 24 in a stat has +7. A 12 in that system also gives a +7. But extra points always increase the modifier instead of having those useless odd numbers.

Inherent bonuses aren't even something you get in the typical level range. They are also something that when you do get them you go straight for +5 and skip every step in between because of the facepalm worthy decision to make it so that inherent bonuses do not stack with themselves and +1 and +1 =/= +2. Making them range from 1-3 actually makes them slightly better. Ability damage would end up about the same if you half it.

Well, first the clarification/clear stuff - Ability damage gets weakened or strengthened because you have to round it up or down when it happens. Inherent bonus +1 means you can get a little ahead by spending that extra point from leveling up four times into your primary ability, then throwing an extra +1 on there. The main problem with 1-3 for me (actually, it'd be 1-2, since you round down, but you could add a 3), is that tomes now cost a minimum of 55k.

Other than that, as said, the point is that those odd numbers aren't always useless. There's many situations that use odd numbers. That said, they're generally niche and not particularly difficult to work around, but if you have to work around a dozen little situations and make sure all of them are balanced, you're asking for trouble. In a practical sense, any DM implementing the houserule is probably going to get complaints that it changes balance or messes with builds. I'm not saying your system is bad, per se, just that it'd be cumbersome to use for something that, in the end, seems to be for convenience - you yourself say "mostly it just removes the illusion of granularity."

[eggynack]

Excuse me? I'd take this right now, but I think it'd be rude to Eggy.
This one seems reasonably simple, I think. Fighters are likely better at intimidation, because they just have the support for it, and they're better at archery, because druids don't even have the weapon support, let alone motivation to invest. However, druids are far better at grappling, because summons+wild shape+animal companion+FOM effects+magic, and they're somewhat better at mounted combat, because they have durable mounts.

Honestly though, the list of combat actions is completely pointless (which is why I didn't poke through all of the random TWF and sundering stuff). All that matters is result, and through a combination of spells and combat action, they can achieve these results better than a fighter. Who the hell cares that a fighter can intimidate everyone, when the druid can drop an avalanche on that group without spending a character resource? Why does it matter that a fighter can theoretically TWF better, when you get the same or better results just using natural attacks from a pile of sources at once, and when not even fighters actually do that stuff if they want to compete? Who cares about sundering items when you could be doing just about anything else?

These advantages, this pile of stuff that fighters are superior at (along with the stuff that they're not superior at at all) are illusory. It doesn't ultimately matter how you lock down an enemy, or a battlefield, or deal your damage. All that matters is cost, both to character and daily resources, chance of success, whether by attack roll, saving throw, or any other relevant factors, and ultimate impact, whether it be the destruction of an enemy or a planet. Other things, like what the attack is called, or how it looks in game, are completely irrelevant to the overall capabilities of a character.

Edit: Seriously though. Grappling? Seriously? Druids are the best grapplers in the game, and fighters are very much not that.

Double-edit: Double-seriously, just look at those builds we put together awhile back. A single summon from orcy (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=821940), with its +30 modifier, is featuring more than double the grapple mod of Kirk the fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17122059&postcount=861), and Oldtrees' build with broader book access (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=811374) looks like it has an even lower mod, and definitely isn't coming close to breaking that crocodile mod.

[Story]

Heck, Fighters aren't even the best at intimidation among low tier martial characters. CW Samurai has them beat there.

[Svata]

Eh, when someone mentions an intimidation fighter, assume Z. Fighter.

[Larkas]

So, I was applying for a low magic campaign a while ago, and the GM and I got into a disagreement when I requested a point buy after rolling a statblock of 13, 14, 11, 10, 8, 8. The GM claimed that point buys hurt non-casters by comparison to dice rolls, while I hold the opinion that point buys are better, since a character with crappy ability scores is going to be overshadowed regularly by someone with better stats, especially in a low magic setting where increasing stats is difficult. Meanwhile, casters only need 1 high stat (casting stat), 1 medium stat (Con for HP), and can live with 8s in other stats (not ideal, of course, but not fatal)

What is the opinion of the Playground on this?

I feel bad for skipping the whole thread, but...

Your DM is actually right, though he probably doesn't know why: the point buy total that best approaches 4d6b3 results is actually 28, not the standard 25. Going with the recommended point buy total is penalizing to non-casters slightly with regards to stat total. (Incidentally, the elite array should be 16/14/13/12/10/9 for the very same reason, not the standard 15/14/13/12/10/8.)

However, I'd say you're still better off even if you're going with the lower point buy, since you can customize your ability scores and hedge against terrible rolls.

[Vhaidara]

I feel bad for skipping the whole thread, but...

Your DM is actually right, though he probably doesn't know why: the point buy total that best approaches 4d6b3 results is actually 28, not the standard 25. Going with the recommended point buy total you are penalizing non-casters slightly with regards to stat total. (Incidentally, the elite array should be 16/14/13/12/10/9 for the very same reason, not the standard 15/14/13/12/10/8.)

However, I'd say you're still better off even if you're going with the lower point buy, since you can customize your ability scores and hedge against terrible rolls.

Actually, he was claiming that point buys, as a whole, as in no matter how high, favor casters.

[supersonic29]

I think point buy is handy when it's totally even ground, like all stats start at 8 or 10 and everyone gets the same extra to distribute, that's if you want to establish perfect fairness.

Personally, I like to be a little looser and have everyone roll random stats, but I also allow them to roll stat sets as many times as they want, but of course once they abandon a set there's no going back. This lets those trying harder to take the time to nail out a strong set, while the more casual players might roll 1-3 sets. When not making intense campaigns it just makes things more randomized and thus unique/exciting imo.

[Larkas]

Actually, he was claiming that point buys, as a whole, as in no matter how high, favor casters.

Ah, then I stand corrected. That is certainly not true. MAD classes are certainly better off with 28+ point buys than with 4d6b3.

[Story]

the point buy total that best approaches 4d6b3 results is actually 28, not the standard 25

Actually, it corresponds to an average of 30.4 PB

[Larkas]

the point buy total that best approaches 4d6b3 results is actually 28, not the standard 25

Actually, it corresponds to an average of 30.4 PB

Oh? How did you arrive at those results? My math is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15965169&postcount=20), in case you're interested. Note that I am being conservative here.

[Jeff the Green]

Sorry to go so far back, but...


It's simply not true that people will refuse to voluntarily take penalties. My most recent character, for instance, I made a point of dumping Wis as far as I could.

Ditto. I'm playing a character who has a Wisdom of 4, though he's insane rather than naive. When he gets a couple levels of Alienist under his belt, that'll drop to 2. And while it's technically minmaxing, it's not optimization. He could be taken out by one hit from an allip, and that's a -3 to Will saves and Spot/Listen checks.

[Story]

Oh? How did you arrive at those results? My math is here, in case you're interested. Note that I am being conservative here.

Mine are here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362050-The-distribution-of-stats-under-PHB-rolling-rules).

[Jormengand]

Also, this (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html) has to do with point buy/the elite aray/rolling/probabilities.

[ace rooster]

Between Polymorph/Wild Shape + animal companion, I'm giving the grapple to the Wizard/Druid

The fact that, for these characters, the fighter has straight 12s except for Str and Con, the Wizard is more likely to take Improved Disarm.

Again, because of the stats, the Fighter is garbage at TWF and Archery.

I might actually argue the Intimidate point because of Polymorph as well, because of size increases

I'm not saying that fighter even approaches a wizard in terms of usefulness, but the wizard gets better results by casting polymorph on the fighter. Saying the wizard is better because of polymorph is entirely missing that most polymorphs stop casters casting (and if they can't speak they cannot dismiss it), while a polymorphed fighter keeps most of his goodies (or mediocre-ies).

Druid is just better I will grant you.

[Story]

Polymorph doesn't stop you from casting if you pick the right forms.

The only thing a polymorphed Fighter has going for it is higher BAB and higher hitpoints. Meanwhile, the Wizard will be able to pile on stuff like SA, Knowledge Devotion, and all the personal-only buffs, depending on the build.

Plus, Draconic Polymorph on the fighter is obviously not an option.

[Zanos]

Polymorph doesn't stop you from casting if you pick the right forms.

The only thing a polymorphed Fighter has going for it is higher BAB and higher hitpoints. Meanwhile, the Wizard will be able to pile on stuff like SA, Knowledge Devotion, and all the personal-only buffs, depending on the build.

Plus, Draconic Polymorph on the fighter is obviously not an option.
Yeah, but then you have to go into (probably) melee combat. I vastly prefer to buff some other buffoon who thinks I'm doing them a favor and let them absorb all the swords/claws/teeth to their body.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, but then you have to go into (probably) melee combat. I vastly prefer to buff some other buffoon who thinks I'm doing them a favor and let them absorb all the swords/claws/teeth to their body.

The ability to also do more effective things doesn't impact the ability to wade into melee with Polymorph and buffs up. Wizards (and Clerics and Druids more so) natively have options that make them exceedingly good at fighting in melee.

[Larkas]

Oh? How did you arrive at those results? My math is here, in case you're interested. Note that I am being conservative here.

Mine are here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362050-The-distribution-of-stats-under-PHB-rolling-rules).

Oooh, interesting! It matches my non-conservative analysis, though I didn't weigh for what you did. Very interesting!

[eggynack]

Yeah, but then you have to go into (probably) melee combat. I vastly prefer to buff some other buffoon who thinks I'm doing them a favor and let them absorb all the swords/claws/teeth to their body.
Well, sure, a wizard with a fighter lackey is obviously going to be better than a wizard or fighter alone. The assumption, however, is that just as you wouldn't assume a random buff target when assessing wizard grappling skills, unless you have a way to account for it (there are so many ways), you also wouldn't assume an awesome wizard casting buffs on you when assessing fighter grappling skills.

[turkishproverb]

I prefer to work with rolls. You have to deal with different results from the expected/wanted, and as a result can end up playing unusual characters. Further, point buy feels kinder to casters, as most of them only need one stat, really.

[Anlashok]

Further, point buy feels kinder to casters, as most of them only need one stat, really.

Wouldn't that make rolling even better for casters because they're not as at the mercy of RNG? It's literally impossible to roll unworkable stats for a druid after all, while it's fairly trivial to end up with an array that makes playing something like a monk a bad idea.

[Thiyr]

Wouldn't that make rolling even better for casters because they're not as at the mercy of RNG? It's literally impossible to roll unworkable stats for a druid after all, while it's fairly trivial to end up with an array that makes playing something like a monk a bad idea.

I can see the rationale, though. Rolling is a chance to get good stats, and a chance to get meh stats, while PB is oftentimes the choice between one highstat vs everything being kinda meh. The Consistency Vs Potential thing, if i had to guess.

[Amphetryon]

I can see the rationale, though. Rolling is a chance to get good stats, and a chance to get meh stats, while PB is oftentimes the choice between one highstat vs everything being kinda meh. The Consistency Vs Potential thing, if i had to guess.

Right, but doesn't that sort of boil down to a variation of the Gambler's Fallacy? "Rolling is better because I might get all really good stats," versus PB where "I can all but guarantee that I'll be able to make the stats I need for my concept high enough to be useful, if not really good."

[Hecuba]

Right, but doesn't that sort of boil down to a variation of the Gambler's Fallacy? "Rolling is better because I might get all really good stats," versus PB where "I can all but guarantee that I'll be able to make the stats I need for my concept high enough to be useful, if not really good."

I wouldn't call that a variation on the Gambler's Fallacy, not leastwise because neither position is factually wrong.
The difference between those 2 statements indicates not a difference in correctness, but a difference in levels risk-aversion.

[Seppo87]

Right, but doesn't that sort of boil down to a variation of the Gambler's Fallacy? "Rolling is better because I might get all really good stats," versus PB where "I can all but guarantee that I'll be able to make the stats I need for my concept high enough to be useful, if not really good."From a rationale standpoint, when you get bad rolls, your character has higher chances of dying. (not mentioning that you can make him die on purpose, but let's pretend you can't)
With good stats your character has higher chances at staying alive longer.
So you will probably spend most of your gaming experience playing above average characters.

As long as you don't care for your characters, random rolls tendentially will allow you to play with above average stats most of the time.

Not saying this is reasonable or anything. Just rational.

[Vogonjeltz]

Between Polymorph/Wild Shape + animal companion, I'm giving the grapple to the Wizard/Druid

The fact that, for these characters, the fighter has straight 12s except for Str and Con, the Wizard is more likely to take Improved Disarm.

Again, because of the stats, the Fighter is garbage at TWF and Archery.

I might actually argue the Intimidate point because of Polymorph as well, because of size increases

Did I misread where you suggested going with 13s for feat access? I thought you were saying that.

Garbage? The fighter has BAB on his side, again an innate advantage. Nobody is saying the wizard and Druid can't expend resources to try and match or exceed what the Fighter is getting baseline, but the baseline for all those activities favors the Fighter.

At level 1 just being a Fighter provides a +1-5 bonus over the Wizard/Druid class at basically all those activities (skills obviously being dependent on where the points are put), possibly more depending on feat selection. Not every Fighter/Wizard/Druid will be excelling at every task, I'm just talking about the minimum bonus advantage to each task.

[Blink Knight]

BAB does exactly two things:

Grants a 4th attack at -15.
Grants a small attack accuracy bonus.

The first ability will by definition almost never hit, so that leaves the second. I trust no explanation is required on what archetype gets better access to attack bonuses.

[Thiyr]

Right, but doesn't that sort of boil down to a variation of the Gambler's Fallacy? "Rolling is better because I might get all really good stats," versus PB where "I can all but guarantee that I'll be able to make the stats I need for my concept high enough to be useful, if not really good."

At that point I think it depends on how high the PB is and how the roll is done. I would rather, for instance, use 4d6b3 7 times, drop lowest, choose best of 3 arrays (the standard roll for our group) than use a 28PB if I'm trying to make, say, a normal paladin (where I need a lot of stats to be good, but I'm okay with not having an 18) while I'd rather use the PB on a wizard (where I really only -need- one, so I want that 18 super badly and can live with everything else being whatever).

Of course, this comes from my experience of rolling a lot of times for characters and, as said previously, only ever having seen a single 18 while rolling for chargen (but dang if that ogre barbarian->suel archanamach cohort wasn't amazing for it), but I'm gonna expect at least one array of solid-but-even stats when rolling.

[Chronos]

Yeah, Bite of the Werebear (which is personal-only) will more than make up the difference by itself. As well as giving a bite attack as a secondary, which is a better extra attack than the bottom-of-the-iteratives that the fighter gets.

[eggynack]

Garbage? The fighter has BAB on his side, again an innate advantage. Nobody is saying the wizard and Druid can't expend resources to try and match or exceed what the Fighter is getting baseline, but the baseline for all those activities favors the Fighter.
Druids are far better at grappling, generally somewhat better at anything involving beating face, and much much better at anything involving locking down a battlefield, and they are that from a baseline perspective. A druid is always six seconds away from summoning a giant crocodile and becoming a big grappler, after all.


At level 1 just being a Fighter provides a +1-5 bonus over the Wizard/Druid class at basically all those activities (skills obviously being dependent on where the points are put), possibly more depending on feat selection. Not every Fighter/Wizard/Druid will be excelling at every task, I'm just talking about the minimum bonus advantage to each task.
Yes, your fighter has a +1-5 bonus, and maybe something from feats, dependent on build. Unfortunately, that's basically crap before the all consuming might of actual abilities. Before feats, we're talking about the ability to summon a wide variety of combat creatures, piles of spells, a combat friend, and spontaneous access to a pile of forms, in comparison to a +1-5 bonus, and after feats, we're talking about absolute ridiculousness like greenbound summoning and aberration wild shape in comparison to a bunch of marginal boosts in line with that aforementioned bonus. It's just a bad place to be for our noble fighter.

[dextercorvia]

<snip>
Monks are Wis-based, no surprise. But no Dex, Str, or Con.<snip>

If we count Fighter Bonus feats then we ought to count Monk's as well. You will find them with Prereqs of Dex, Int, and Wis. Many of those require Str checks. Still no Con though.

[Svata]

Did I misread where you suggested going with 13s for feat access? I thought you were saying that.

Garbage? The fighter has BAB on his side, again an innate advantage. Nobody is saying the wizard and Druid can't expend resources to try and match or exceed what the Fighter is getting baseline, but the baseline for all those activities favors the Fighter.

Crocodiles and Black Tetacles. Yes they've "expended resources" to use it, but if you want to grapple at all you have to get IUS, and Imp. Grapple, expending 1/9 of your feats (if you go fighter 20, more if you dip something else or PrC out) Whereas a druid is expending one spell he doesn't even need to prepare, and the wizard is expending one spell known (which, as it is a good spell, he probably would have done anyway,) and a lot less than 1/9 of spells prepared. Also, barring DCS cheese, the fighter doesn't get to change his feats daily. The wizard and druid (especially the druid) can change what spells they prepare each and every day.


At level 1 just being a Fighter provides a +1-5 bonus over the Wizard/Druid class at basically all those activities (skills obviously being dependent on where the points are put), possibly more depending on feat selection. Not every Fighter/Wizard/Druid will be excelling at every task, I'm just talking about the minimum bonus advantage to each task.

Levels 1/2 are rocket tag of the highest order. If your example reuires the game to be at those levels, it isn't a very good example.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, Bite of the Werebear (which is personal-only) will more than make up the difference by itself. As well as giving a bite attack as a secondary, which is a better extra attack than the bottom-of-the-iteratives that the fighter gets.

Actually no it doesn't. The wizard can't cast that until 9th level, it only provides a +2 to hit, the wizard will still be at least 3 to hit behind the fighter, and it does nothing for BAB. And natural attacks are automatically secondary if it's not the only attack made, so that's another -5.


Druids are far better at grappling, generally somewhat better at anything involving beating face, and much much better at anything involving locking down a battlefield, and they are that from a baseline perspective. A druid is always six seconds away from summoning a giant crocodile and becoming a big grappler, after all.

Yes, your fighter has a +1-5 bonus, and maybe something from feats, dependent on build. Unfortunately, that's basically crap before the all consuming might of actual abilities. Before feats, we're talking about the ability to summon a wide variety of combat creatures, piles of spells, a combat friend, and spontaneous access to a pile of forms, in comparison to a +1-5 bonus, and after feats, we're talking about absolute ridiculousness like greenbound summoning and aberration wild shape in comparison to a bunch of marginal boosts in line with that aforementioned bonus. It's just a bad place to be for our noble fighter.

Can't cast in a grapple, SNA has somatic components. That's also not the Druid grappling, so the point stands, the Druid is inferior themselves at grappling. Baseline.

All Fighters have this innate advantage, yours too.

Green bound summoning is neither baseline nor applicable to any setting but Forgotten Realms, so ymmv. Forms don't come into play until 5th level+, and I don't see why aberration form matters at all.

So what actual class abilities were you thinking of? I don't see any listed.

*missed this:

Crocodiles and Black Tetacles. Yes they've "expended resources" to use it, but if you want to grapple at all you have to get IUS, and Imp. Grapple, expending 1/9 of your feats (if you go fighter 20, more if you dip something else or PrC out) Whereas a druid is expending one spell he doesn't even need to prepare, and the wizard is expending one spell known (which, as it is a good spell, he probably would have done anyway,) and a lot less than 1/9 of spells prepared. Also, barring DCS cheese, the fighter doesn't get to change his feats daily. The wizard and druid (especially the druid) can change what spells they prepare each and every day.

Levels 1/2 are rocket tag of the highest order. If your example reuires the game to be at those levels, it isn't a very good example.

The Wizard still has to have the spell in his spell book, no guarantee. And grappling only really benefits with IUS if the target is armed (ie a monk, monster with natural weapons, or someone with a drawn weapon), it's a very viable option even absent those, which is also most of the situations where a character is likely to resort to grappling at all.

It's too late to expend those spells if an enemy is grappling you, and the SNA spells have normal cast times allowing an enemy to easily disrupt them with a grapple attack.

The rocket tag metaphor is misplaced, it's certainly possible for non melee to temporarily disable a character, or for melee to disable a non melee, but most melee are likely to survive the first hit or attacks.

[georgie_leech]

Can't cast in a grapple, SNA has somatic components. That's also not the Druid grappling, so the point stands, the Druid is inferior themselves at grappling. Baseline.

All Fighters have this innate advantage, yours too.

The Druid takes an action and has an ongoing source of Grapples. If Fighters got native sources of minions to Grapple for them, like if they automatically got Leadership or something, we'd be evaluating those too.



So what actual class abilities were you thinking of? I don't see any listed.

Spellcasting and Wildshape and Animal Companion. A.k.a all the major ones.

[eggynack]

Can't cast in a grapple, SNA has somatic components. That's also not the Druid grappling, so the point stands, the Druid is inferior themselves at grappling. Baseline.
That's not what either inferior at grappling or baseline means. If the druid can summon something that's better at grappling than the fighter, then that's the druid being better at grappling. Furthermore, this ability is obviously baseline in nature. As I noted in a post awhile ago, you really need to be more results oriented in your thinking. If the enemy is grappled, who cares how they got to that point? I'm also not entirely sure how the fact that you can't cast in a grapple applies when the plan there is presumably to just be a big creature and grapple the opponent. Just doing that, at least at some levels, is more than enough to grapple better than a fighter.


All Fighters have this innate advantage, yours too.
Yes, your fighter has this innate advantage. No, it doesn't exceed the innate advantages of spells, wild shape, summoning, or the animal companion.

Green bound summoning is neither baseline nor applicable to any setting but Forgotten Realms, so ymmv. Forms don't come into play until 5th level+, and I don't see why aberration form matters at all.
Indeed, greenbound isn't baseline. I was talking about situations where we're starting to work with feats. Fighters do get more feats, because it's their big class feature, but druids get better feats, so it doesn't make much sense to consider one and not the other. As for setting specific-ness, I guess that's a thing of some shape, but the feat is pretty generic as these things go, and there were no stated limitations on books. As for aberration forms, they matter cause they do everything, or at least mostly everything. Everything from extra actions to better combat in one fantastic shell. The point of bringing it up is just to show that druid feats are far better than yours, thus justify the thing I said at the beginning of this paragraph.

So what actual class abilities were you thinking of? I don't see any listed.
Just, so many spells. Like, you're trying to get your intimidation or sundering thing online, in order to control the battlefield in some fashion, and the druid just says, "Don't worry your pretty little fighter head about that. Fwashoom! Entangle/blinding spittle/sleet storm/boreal wind/control winds! The problem is handled and then some." There's also all the other things I listed, which are also class features.

[turkishproverb]

Wouldn't that make rolling even better for casters because they're not as at the mercy of RNG? It's literally impossible to roll unworkable stats for a druid after all, while it's fairly trivial to end up with an array that makes playing something like a monk a bad idea.

No. Because while you might roll non-competative stats for a non-caster, you will have relatively mediocre/crap stats as a point buy non-caster.


Right, but doesn't that sort of boil down to a variation of the Gambler's Fallacy? "Rolling is better because I might get all really good stats," versus PB where "I can all but guarantee that I'll be able to make the stats I need for my concept high enough to be useful, if not really good."

Point buy guarantees you won't be good at things to a sufficient level if you're a non-caster. you will have to choose less than high-quality stats in at least one of the multiple scores that become important under those circumstances.

[eggynack]

No. Because while you might roll non-competative stats for a non-caster, you will have relatively mediocre/crap stats as a point buy non-caster.

Point buy guarantees you won't be good at things to a sufficient level if you're a non-caster. you will have to choose less than high-quality stats in at least one of the multiple scores that become important under those circumstances.
Unless you choose a reasonably high point buy. It always feels like these arguments are against low point buy, rather than point buy in general.

[Anlashok]

No. Because while you might roll non-competative stats for a non-caster, you will have relatively mediocre/crap stats as a point buy non-caster.

Only if you assume a particularly low point-buy, which everyone has already acknowledged isn't really good for anyone involved. So.. that's just straw.

[Svata]

No. Because while you might roll non-competative stats for a non-caster, you will have relatively mediocre/crap stats as a point buy non-caster.



Point buy guarantees you won't be good at things to a sufficient level if you're a non-caster. you will have to choose less than high-quality stats in at least one of the multiple scores that become important under those circumstances.

As everyone has said, that's against low PB. 32 point-buy, which is what most people use, will get you two 16s, two 13s, a 10, and an 8 on a martial. That's enough to make a solid character with. On a caster, you get an 18, a 16, a 14, and three 8s. Sounds comparable enough to me.

By the way, that martial PB, gets you a +3 to your STR and CON, and to qualify for both Combat Reflexes and Combat Expertise.

[Larkas]

Point buy guarantees you won't be good at things to a sufficient level if you're a non-caster. you will have to choose less than high-quality stats in at least one of the multiple scores that become important under those circumstances.

How is that so? Give your players a comparatively big point buy (28~32+) and it's mostly guaranteed that they'll have the stats they need.

[Blink Knight]

Actually no it doesn't. The wizard can't cast that until 9th level, it only provides a +2 to hit, the wizard will still be at least 3 to hit behind the fighter, and it does nothing for BAB. And natural attacks are automatically secondary if it's not the only attack made, so that's another -5.

First of all, Bite of the Werebear provides substantially greater bonuses than that. 16 Str, for starters. Second, Bite of the Wereboar (the actual fifth level one) is inferior to Draconic Polymorph (also self only). Third, anyone that cares about BAB has 3/4th at the absolute minimum (and I've already explained how the difference between 3/4th and full is negligible).

It is absolutely trivial for a Wizard, or Druid, or any other solid caster to out perform a Fighter at melee combat. Such a character might or might not outperform a more dedicated melee, and there are dedicated melees capable of grappling (that might dip Fighter, but that's it).

Said Fighters are also outperformed by the things they are meant to be fighting.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with character generation methods though.

[Chronos]

Quoth dextercorvia:

If we count Fighter Bonus feats then we ought to count Monk's as well. You will find them with Prereqs of Dex, Int, and Wis. Many of those require Str checks. Still no Con though.
But that's irrelevant, since monks get their bonus feats without needing prerequisites. You can play a monk with an Int of 3 and still get Improved Trip, so Improved Trip doesn't make the monk at all Int-based.

[Vogonjeltz]

The Druid takes an action and has an ongoing source of Grapples. If Fighters got native sources of minions to Grapple for them, like if they automatically got Leadership or something, we'd be evaluating those too.

Spellcasting and Wildshape and Animal Companion. A.k.a all the major ones.

Takes an action? It takes a whole round to cast.

Fighters can rear, train, and handle animals, so they do have the native ability to have minions (granted it requires some skill point investment, but it is there). I don't consider this any more valid than claiming the animal companion is the Druid grappling, it's not it is a proxy.

Can't direct them to grapple without a handle animal check to push them, or speak with animals active. So that's not even an option until later levels (or not at all if the Druid has no ranks in handle animal).

Wildshape doesn't come into play until
Level 5, and it's not until the Druid can be large and they aren't exactly surpassing the Fighter prior to gaining large form at 8th level.


That's not what either inferior at grappling or baseline means. If the druid can summon something that's better at grappling than the fighter, then that's the druid being better at grappling. Furthermore, this ability is obviously baseline in nature. As I noted in a post awhile ago, you really need to be more results oriented in your thinking. If the enemy is grappled, who cares how they got to that point? I'm also not entirely sure how the fact that you can't cast in a grapple applies when the plan there is presumably to just be a big creature and grapple the opponent. Just doing that, at least at some levels, is more than enough to grapple better than a fighter.

Yes, your fighter has this innate advantage. No, it doesn't exceed the innate advantages of spells, wild shape, summoning, or the animal companion.

Indeed, greenbound isn't baseline. I was talking about situations where we're starting to work with feats. Fighters do get more feats, because it's their big class feature, but druids get better feats, so it doesn't make much sense to consider one and not the other. As for setting specific-ness, I guess that's a thing of some shape, but the feat is pretty generic as these things go, and there were no stated limitations on books. As for aberration forms, they matter cause they do everything, or at least mostly everything. Everything from extra actions to better combat in one fantastic shell. The point of bringing it up is just to show that druid feats are far better than yours, thus justify the thing I said at the beginning of this paragraph.

Just, so many spells. Like, you're trying to get your intimidation or sundering thing online, in order to control the battlefield in some fashion, and the druid just says, "Don't worry your pretty little fighter head about that. Fwashoom! Entangle/blinding spittle/sleet storm/boreal wind/control winds! The problem is handled and then some." There's also all the other things I listed, which are also class features.

No, that's not the Druid being better, it's the summon. It doesn't help that those summons are only temporary, and they don't automatically grapple unless the Druid can make the check/communicate with them somehow.

This is a serious problem if you're concerned about the end result, it's great and all to maybe grapple the target for 30 seconds, doesn't help if that thing gets removed because time on the clock ran out or it got dispelled, or dragged into an AMF, forbiddance or the like, serious weaknesses one and all.

I don't think there was a plan to grapple, I was speaking generically, without any feats or ability scores in consideration. We could examine what each can do when trying to do a specific task...but that didn't seem related to the concept that the ability scores don't matter too much.

The exact situation makes a difference, nothing you mention sunders, so if the problem is actually sundering something (say, a scroll, staff, door, etc...) none of those spells will do anything.

[Amphetryon]

Point buy guarantees you won't be good at things to a sufficient level if you're a non-caster. you will have to choose less than high-quality stats in at least one of the multiple scores that become important under those circumstances. 32 point buy: 16 14 14 12 12 10, before racial modifiers, which a truly MAD character could choose to use on one of those 12s. If you need more than 4 stats to be 14 or higher, I think I need an explanation as to why this is so. . . particularly given the ability to make a given stat do double-duty through things such as what's listed in Person_Man's handy consolidated resource (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125732-3-x-X-stat-to-Y-bonus).

TL;DR: I don't believe the word 'guarantee' signifies what you think it does, in this case.

[eggynack]

No, that's not the Druid being better, it's the summon. It doesn't help that those summons are only temporary, and they don't automatically grapple unless the Druid can make the check/communicate with them somehow.
The summons is the druid, and the druid is the summons. By your logic, I could similarly argue that it is not the fighter tripping things, but rather his fancy guisarme. Consider, what is the true difference between summoned grapplers and the fighter grappling? There really isn't much of one, and while there are a few disadvantages, you're mostly in advantage territory, as I'll point out below. As for automatic grappling, that just means that you need a creature with improved grab. Those just grapple automatically on a hit, no communication necessary.


This is a serious problem if you're concerned about the end result, it's great and all to maybe grapple the target for 30 seconds, doesn't help if that thing gets removed because time on the clock ran out or it got dispelled, or dragged into an AMF, forbiddance or the like, serious weaknesses one and all.

Those are admittedly issues, but they're also pretty small ones, and depend largely on your opponent already having these defenses up. The fact that grappling stops casting is often asserted as the main point, after all. It's also relevant that these defenses tend to be pretty high level/hard to put up, to the point where I'd easily expect a wizard with forbiddance up to also have heart of water up, making this pretty irrelevant. As for only grappling for 30 seconds, that's usually going to be more than enough time to do whatever it is you're trying to do, especially as grappling summons tend to have the ability to inflict a lot of damage in the grapple (something that a standard fighter is woefully incapable of), and as the animal companion can add to that damage total.

Anyway, that's enough about disadvantages. On to the advantages. First, as georgie notes, summons based grappling puts you in a good place in the action economy, while fighter based grappling puts you in a bad place. Fighters end up trading actions on a one for one basis in a grapple, while druids trade a single round for the entire duration of a summons in grappling. That gives time to cast spells, or use sling bullets, or hell, even grapple. Actions are good.

Second, monsters tend to be larger than you, and they often have more stuff to do in a grapple. This often makes grappling either difficult or impossible, depending on the situation. Fortunately for druids though, all of their grappling trickery, whether it be wild shape or summons based, is formed on the back of monsters. That means that they break approximately even with those big hulking monsters, and that they come out far ahead of enemies that fighters break even with.

Third, and finally (for now, anyway), grappling is situational. I'm aware that this doesn't precisely hit on your odd BAB based point, but if you want to compete with summons based grappling, you're going to need feat support. It's just a tragic truth. I mean, I guess we could also call this section, "Fighters don't have improved grab," and you'd get to about the same place. The point, anyway, is that druids at their baseline grappling ability, with no feats or anything, are generally better in the field than reasonably specialized fighters. If you compare to baseline fighter, then there's just no comparison (the grappling numbers are crazy different, at the outset), and so you're stuck in a situation where fighters have to specialize to compete in this arena, and then when they do, and get screwed by their specialization, the baseline druid just kicks ass in another way. I suppose the simplest way to put it is that the druid can always summon something else.


I don't think there was a plan to grapple, I was speaking generically, without any feats or ability scores in consideration. We could examine what each can do when trying to do a specific task...but that didn't seem related to the concept that the ability scores don't matter too much.
It's a good thing that druids are also far better generically. I'm just trying to cover my bases here though, assessing both the comparison to the built and unbuilt fighter.

The exact situation makes a difference, nothing you mention sunders, so if the problem is actually sundering something (say, a scroll, staff, door, etc...) none of those spells will do anything.

If the situation makes a difference, then what's the situation? Far more often than not, a different effect can easily take the place of sundering.

[Vogonjeltz]

The summons is the druid, and the druid is the summons. By your logic, I could similarly argue that it is not the fighter tripping things, but rather his fancy guisarme. Consider, what is the true difference between summoned grapplers and the fighter grappling? There really isn't much of one, and while there are a few disadvantages, you're mostly in advantage territory, as I'll point out below. As for automatic grappling, that just means that you need a creature with improved grab. Those just grapple automatically on a hit, no communication necessary.

Those are admittedly issues, but they're also pretty small ones, and depend largely on your opponent already having these defenses up. The fact that grappling stops casting is often asserted as the main point, after all. It's also relevant that these defenses tend to be pretty high level/hard to put up, to the point where I'd easily expect a wizard with forbiddance up to also have heart of water up, making this pretty irrelevant. As for only grappling for 30 seconds, that's usually going to be more than enough time to do whatever it is you're trying to do, especially as grappling summons tend to have the ability to inflict a lot of damage in the grapple (something that a standard fighter is woefully incapable of), and as the animal companion can add to that damage total.

Anyway, that's enough about disadvantages. On to the advantages. First, as georgie notes, summons based grappling puts you in a good place in the action economy, while fighter based grappling puts you in a bad place. Fighters end up trading actions on a one for one basis in a grapple, while druids trade a single round for the entire duration of a summons in grappling. That gives time to cast spells, or use sling bullets, or hell, even grapple. Actions are good.

Second, monsters tend to be larger than you, and they often have more stuff to do in a grapple. This often makes grappling either difficult or impossible, depending on the situation. Fortunately for druids though, all of their grappling trickery, whether it be wild shape or summons based, is formed on the back of monsters. That means that they break approximately even with those big hulking monsters, and that they come out far ahead of enemies that fighters break even with.

Third, and finally (for now, anyway), grappling is situational. I'm aware that this doesn't precisely hit on your odd BAB based point, but if you want to compete with summons based grappling, you're going to need feat support. It's just a tragic truth. I mean, I guess we could also call this section, "Fighters don't have improved grab," and you'd get to about the same place. The point, anyway, is that druids at their baseline grappling ability, with no feats or anything, are generally better in the field than reasonably specialized fighters. If you compare to baseline fighter, then there's just no comparison (the grappling numbers are crazy different, at the outset), and so you're stuck in a situation where fighters have to specialize to compete in this arena, and then when they do, and get screwed by their specialization, the baseline druid just kicks ass in another way. I suppose the simplest way to put it is that the druid can always summon something else.

It's a good thing that druids are also far better generically. I'm just trying to cover my bases here though, assessing both the comparison to the built and unbuilt fighter.

If the situation makes a difference, then what's the situation? Far more often than not, a different effect can easily take the place of sundering.

I do not agree with the claim that the PC doing something is the same as a 3rd party doing the action.

Furthermore, summons take too long to throw up in comparison, if you really need to grapple someone as a Druid you have to have started the round before. By the time the summons might be available (assuming the enemy didn't just interrupt or counter spell) it could be too late.