PDA

View Full Version : Point-buy?



Hiruma
2007-05-19, 09:46 AM
I'm completely baffled by the term 'point-buy'. Just what exactly does '28 point-buy' or 'x point-buy' mean?

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-05-19, 09:51 AM
As far as I understand it, you make a new character, you set all the stats to 8 and ignore racial adjustments, then you "buy" more points to improve them. from 8-14 it costs 1 point to improve 1 point of a stat, for 15-16 it costs 2 point for 1 poin 17-18 costs 3 points for 1 point, higher the 18 is not possible without racial adjustments.

edit: forgot this: 28 point buy you get 28 points to buy your stats with, so x point buy give you x points.

TheThan
2007-05-19, 09:55 AM
check the dungeon master's guide page 169. should explain everything

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 10:59 AM
It is evil blasphemy that should not be tolerated.

Turn away citizen before you are corrupted.

ocato
2007-05-19, 11:00 AM
It's not a bad system in some aspects and a pain in the bottom in others. If you like high powered games, 25 points, 28 points, even 32 points will have you scrimping and groaning somewhat. But it's nice to be able to take a point out of charisma to get enough intelligence to get Combat Expertise. So it's a try it and see how you feel sort of deal

Winged One
2007-05-19, 11:04 AM
It is evil blasphemy that should not be tolerated.

Turn away citizen before you are corrupted.

Yeah, because it's so right and holy to be unable to play a concept because you didn't roll high or low enough on any of your ability scores. It's also perfectly reasonable to give better stats to someone just because they had a bit of good luck.:smallamused:

Hiruma
2007-05-19, 11:10 AM
Point-buy is alot better than rolling dice, if you ask me.

Vaniel
2007-05-19, 11:10 AM
Can't play cause you didn't roll high enough?

A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.

Furthermore, point buy serves to equalize all team players together, in terms of stats, instead of being luck.

Rad
2007-05-19, 11:15 AM
Hummm... actually, I came to the conclusion that any randomness in character creation is BAD. Especially since d20 requires a lot of planning it is pretty annoying to have to cope with what the dice said; especially if the different players had different luck with those few initial rolls.
I'd consider stopping rolling for HP too, but I'm slightly more open on that.

ocato
2007-05-19, 11:21 AM
Well, I don't dislike it, but my old group rolled with some very liberal and high minded ideas. Like, reroll 1s and 2s and you automatically get one 18. Sue us, we're practitioners of the 'heroes are heroic' mindset. Point Buy is great, but I feel like I might as well be playing a commoner when I'm given 25 points.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 11:25 AM
Can't play cause you didn't roll high enough?

A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.

Furthermore, point buy serves to equalize all team players together, in terms of stats, instead of being luck.

In theory mayber, but it isn't exactly very fun to play a monk with 13 12 10 10 12 8.

Or a wizard with 13 14 12 14 13 11

Especially when someone in your party is a rogue with 18 Str, 18 Dex, 15 Con, and 18 Intelligence

Point Buy is a good system, because it allows you to build a character rather than leaving a huge piece of your performance to chance.

Winged One
2007-05-19, 11:30 AM
Can't play cause you didn't roll high enough?

A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.

Furthermore, point buy serves to equalize all team players together, in terms of stats, instead of being luck.

Or low enough. For example, a naive wizard who doesn't understand the ways of the world outside his teacher's tower is hard to justify as having a non-negative Wisdom modifier, and sometimes you never roll below a 10. I've played with rolled stats, and sometimes I get phenominally lucky by getting the right stats, but I have had to manipulate the rules of the way we rolled(4d6 drop lowest, 7 times, pick 6, in that case) to get a low enough ability score for my character concept.

Zherog
2007-05-19, 11:31 AM
Can't play cause you didn't roll high enough?

A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.


True story. 4d6 drop lowest, I once rolled stats of 11,10,10,9,5,5,4. (we actually played with 4d6 drop lowest; roll seven times and take the best six. Those seven values were my rolls after dropping the lowest die) Sorry - you cannot play any concept other than "useless doormat" with those stats.

Pros of point buy: Luck isn't a factor in character creation; while I rolled stats like that, one of the other players rolled two 18s and a 17 for his stats, and everything else was 10 or higher as well. With point buy you get the character you envision. (and note, that includes any "faults" you want as well; for example, if my friend wanted to play a dirty, smelly, callous, rude, ugly human, his stats wouldn't let him - since the worst his Charisma could've been was 10)

Cons of point buy: You do end up with a bit more of a "cookie cutter" feel to characters' stats, especially after you create several characters.

Corncracker
2007-05-19, 11:35 AM
For Class's with MAD Point By is hardly balancing. It especially Benifits Class's Like Wizard, who really only need intelegance, and Druids who can Wild Shape to boost their Physical Stats anyway.

A Monk and Paladin, who rely on many Stats, are rather screwed in comparasin. Even a Fighter is at more of a disadvantage to a wizard under this system, as they rely on the three physical Stats to operate.

TroyXavier
2007-05-19, 11:39 AM
Plus if they want somethign like Combat Expertise....or a decent Wisdom so they aren't failing Will saves left and right......

Just one more reason why casters are more powerful.

RaistlinandPals
2007-05-19, 11:52 AM
Hooray for the 69 point system!

Lolth
2007-05-19, 11:54 AM
We use point-buy (28, to be exact) for our online chat, because, basically, when you have lots of players with different backgrounds before coming to chat, something that applies equally (is equally good/bad for all) is the best solution.

It also takes DMs out of having to "witness" PC stat rolling, and people rolling 56bazillion characters until the dice give them something über.

Multiplied by dozens of players.

GryffonDurime
2007-05-19, 11:54 AM
You can't really argue that casters are more powerful in pointbuy than MAD classes.

Even when rolling, compare the chances of getting one good stat to getting all the stats a Paladin or the like would need.

Latronis
2007-05-19, 12:02 PM
I have my players use a pointbuy of 26 + 2d6 (drop one of choice)

Piccamo
2007-05-19, 12:14 PM
For Class's with MAD Point By is hardly balancing. It especially Benifits Class's Like Wizard, who really only need intelegance, and Druids who can Wild Shape to boost their Physical Stats anyway.

A Monk and Paladin, who rely on many Stats, are rather screwed in comparasin. Even a Fighter is at more of a disadvantage to a wizard under this system, as they rely on the three physical Stats to operate.

Yes, those who are hybrids and rely on MAD should be at least as good as those who have a primary focus in whatever you're doing :smallannoyed: Even if paladins and monks had all 18s and the wizard only had one they would feel weak compared to a well-played wizard.

As for fighters needing 3 physical stats, thats just plain untrue. You need 2. Your primary stat is generally strength (so you can do the damage) and your secondary stat is constitution, just like everybody else.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-19, 12:15 PM
Fighter, Paladin, and Monk are horrifically underpowered anyway. Saying point-buy is a bad choice because of these three classes is silly. Replace them with Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage respectively and you make much more sense.

EDIT: I just noticed this..


Can't play cause you didn't roll high enough?

A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.

Furthermore, point buy serves to equalize all team players together, in terms of stats, instead of being luck.

Thats completely ridicilous. I'd love to see you play a Wizard with 11/3/8/11/7/6. Yes, I have rolled a set of stats like that before(it was for a Druid, but Wizard has even less MAD than Druid).

bosssmiley
2007-05-19, 12:39 PM
Thats completely ridicilous. I'd love to see you play a Wizard with 11/3/8/11/7/6. Yes, I have rolled a set of stats like that before(it was for a Druid, but Wizard has even less MAD than Druid).

Played worse (was a pre-3rd Ed player - "stat bumps and stat adder items? Luxury!")

Int and Dex 11, Str 3, the rest to taste. All your stat bumps into Int (and a decent +Int item) should see the character through just fine. Sure, he's going to be even more of a 'soggy paper magus' than normal until level 4 or so, but that's part of the challenge. A primary character stat in the 18-20 range is not mandatory for an effective and enjoyable playing experience.

That said though, I'm a fan of point buy generation (28pt usually). Saves someone being gypped out of playing a concept they like just by bad die rolls.

Tengu
2007-05-19, 12:45 PM
Random stats are a relic of the past and should die.

It's the same, in my opinion, with everything random and depending on luck when it comes to character creation/advancement - I never liked random hit dice, and am glad that in NWN games (the closest to DND I ever played) you either can reroll your health at each level till you have max, or even (in NWN2) have max health each level by default. Though it might've been more reasonable to use average health instead.

UserClone
2007-05-19, 01:12 PM
I think that in a game as wildly variable as D&D already is, character creation should be based on a fixed system, not luck. Therefore, characters in my games get 25 points or the Elite Array(15,14,13,12,10,8), their choice, and average hit points (rounded up for even character levels, down for odd).

That said, I am currently a player in a game whose DM allowed 4d6 drop lowest, or any of 3 arrays: 14,14,14,14,14,14; 18,18,16,14,10,8; or 18,16,16,12,12,10. Also, roll hit die once per level and take the higher of either the roll, or average(rounded down). Now that's high-powered. (but why would anyone be cracked enough to roll for ability scores in this case?)

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 02:26 PM
Well, I don't dislike it, but my old group rolled with some very liberal and high minded ideas. Like, reroll 1s and 2s and you automatically get one 18. Sue us, we're practitioners of the 'heroes are heroic' mindset. Point Buy is great, but I feel like I might as well be playing a commoner when I'm given 25 points.

If it works for your group, I can understand it as a play style, but this is a REALLY high power way of statting, and it isn't really fair to compare a point buy to it.

Point buys are often unpopular because certain players feel like they "can't play a wizard without an 18 base Int" and really want to have 3 16+'s for their characters, and really feel the need to go for broke. There's a reason that rolling is the standard way to go, it's fun and it gives you the potentional for a really powerful character, but as a whole it's a hit or miss enterprise; and it's somewhat problematic to be starting a character that you'll be playing for a whole campaign based on a hit or miss enterprise.

Point buys, as a system, are entirely balanced and fair.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 02:36 PM
Yeah, because it's so right and holy to be unable to play a concept because you didn't roll high or low enough on any of your ability scores. It's also perfectly reasonable to give better stats to someone just because they had a bit of good luck.:smallamused:

I was being sarcastic, playing upon traditionalist viewpoints. I never personally use Point buy because it makes characters less organic, too structured. With point buy you can recreate the same character as much as you want. With rolled stats characters are more unique. It's more realistic that not everyone is equally talented and you don't get to deciede who you are. You are under no obligation to play that way if you don't find it fun though.
Surely it's more of a challange to try and put random stuff to good use?


A concept, whatever it may be, can always be played, whatever the stats.

Unless that concept is supersmart and superstrong Mary McSue.


Furthermore, point buy serves to equalize all team players together, in terms of stats, instead of being luck.

The whole game is luck. I could role 6 18s at character creation and then never get a d20 roll above 5.


Hummm... actually, I came to the conclusion that any randomness in character creation is BAD. Especially since d20 requires a lot of planning it is pretty annoying to have to cope with what the dice said; especially if the different players had different luck with those few initial rolls.
I'd consider stopping rolling for HP too, but I'm slightly more open on that.

DnD requires as much planning as you want to put into it. Randomness in character creation is as bad as randomness anywhere. Prestige class prerequisites are a sin in this respect. Planning is a problem since you might deciede to create an undead slaying greatsword wielder and then fail to fight any undead or find a decent magic greatsword. It would be a more realistic campaign if you chose to be an undead slaying greatsword wielder after finding out that the BBEG is a lich and finding an Excaliber style greatsword.

Luke Skywalker wasn't built to have a high wisdom and dex stat so that he could become a Jedi once he had 8 ranks in concentration. He had to become a Jedi because Obi Won gave him a lightsabre and he had to avenge Obi while if anything Luke was planning to be a fighter pilot.

Sometimes I feel like strangling people who are too worked up on character concepts and planning but Prcs sort of force them too.



Thats completely ridicilous. I'd love to see you play a Wizard with 11/3/8/11/7/6. Yes, I have rolled a set of stats like that before(it was for a Druid, but Wizard has even less MAD than Druid).

Put one 11 in Int the other in Con. You're first level so you don't need higher int (though bonus spell are nice). Then increase Int at every level up. Get items that increase Int. You can survive by hiding behind the fighter. Look at Logic Ninja's guide for examples of useful low level spells. Even if you never get 19 Int for Time Stop you'll still have Cloudkill.

prufock
2007-05-19, 03:31 PM
...I once rolled stats of 11,10,10,9,5,5,4.


I'd love to see you play a Wizard with 11/3/8/11/7/6.


In theory mayber, but it isn't exactly very fun to play a monk with 13 12 10 10 12 8.

Or a wizard with 13 14 12 14 13 11

PHB p. 8: "If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower."

So, by the RAW, you would reroll three of those 4 sets of scores anyway. Others have suggested that you could play those stats - and you could, though sub-optimally - but by the attribute rolling rules, you wouldn't be forced to stick to them.

And a wizard with 13 14 12 14 13 11 isn't that infeasible. All you really need to pump is intelligence, and depending on what races are legal in your campaign, that could be a 16 at first level.

Jack Mann
2007-05-19, 03:48 PM
I'd rather play a character that's actually useful. That Int 11 wizard just isn't, most of the time. He has even fewer bonus spells than most wizards. He won't be able to cast second-level spells until level four, and might not even be able to cast third level spells until level seven or eight (since you're not supposed to be allowed to spend more than a quarter of your wealth on a single item). His saving throws are so low it's going to be a rare event something actually fails one.

With at least a 14, as the rules say, you're somewhat better off, especially with good spell selection. But you're still going to have to work a lot harder to be effective. It's easier as a wizard, since they have more ways to shore up their weaknesses, but what about, say, a fighter with 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8? All right, I suppose you could play a character like that. But I know I wouldn't have any fun, when my buddy is playing a fighter with 18, 14, 18, 12, 14, 10. In any fight with the two of us, I'm relegated to the sidelines. I suddenly don't matter. I'm not a mighty warrior. I'm a sidekick. I can't even pick better feats than him, since I can't make the prerequisites for a lot of the good ones.

Yeah, the game is largely about luck. But no single set of roles should have the potential to ruin the game for you. That's why I advocate point-buy.

Incidentally, if you factor in the minimum scores, 4d6, drop the lowest, six times actually averages out to 28-point buy, not 25-point. Just sayin'.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 04:13 PM
Yeah, the game is largely about luck. But no single set of roles should have the potential to ruin the game for you. That's why I advocate point-buy.

I understand the advantages of Point Buy. I just find it to be an annoying compromise. I'm always DMing so I never have this problem, possibly making me heartless in this matter.

Things like Warhammer Roleplay's completely random character generation system where you only get to choose what your character does during play looks interesting on paper but isn't fun for everyone.

I'm sort of a traditionalist. Maybe I just prefer character developement to starting fully formed. DnD is supposed to be about leveling up and how powerful you can become, not where you started from.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 04:27 PM
The whole game is luck. I could role 6 18s at character creation and then never get a d20 roll above 5.
But you won't roll below 5 forever! If you roll a bad check, your roll can be different next time. Having really, really, low stats is annoying because it does always sticks with you.

It's kind of like rolling three d20s and using them for all of your rolls for the whole game. Sure, the guy who rolled 14, 12, 18, will be psyched, but the guy who rolled 3, 2, 7, will have a bum time.

Saying you "prefer character development" over planning is a bit flawed, as it isn't as though you really have much room to grow with stats. The average decent-sized campaign, which spans about 8-12 levels only gives you three extra to work with over the course of play, and the best you can really do is wait until class features overshadow stats. That isn't really character development, that's just trudging through suboptimal stats.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-19, 04:42 PM
Character development? Ok. You favor character development over stats, but you just spent pretty much all your gold and your few stat increases to get a useable intelligence. Why not have that wizard just suck and say he sucks because he's well and truly inept? Make an entire character background and personality based off him being an incredibly bad wizard?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 04:59 PM
Character development? Ok. You favor character development over stats, but you just spent pretty much all your gold and your few stat increases to get a useable intelligence. Why not have that wizard just suck and say he sucks because he's well and truly inept? Make an entire character background and personality based off him being an incredibly bad wizard?

Character developement isn't about making a background about how sucky a character is. . It's about where you can take a sucky character and how he can learn to be useful in whatever limited way he manages.

I wasn't suggesting you actually use a character with no stat above 11. I would roll some new stats. It is possible though. Being strong doesn't stop you from playing intelligently but being weak can force you to do so.

I've never seen anyone have their fun ruined by having bad stats. In my current campaign the guy with 3 18s keeps complaining about being useless and not getting any good treasure while the guy with crap stats and loads of treasure is having fun with his toys despite the fact he can't hit because he couldn't take weapon focus in all of them. The most powerful character in the group had starting stats of 18, 14, 14, 14, 14, 13, which are good but he'd be suffering if he wasn't forced to play to his strength while the weakest character in the group started with 18 16 15 10, 9, 7 who's less balanced but has more potential if he ignores his weak attributes.

Starsinger
2007-05-19, 05:00 PM
Luke Skywalker wasn't built to have a high wisdom and dex stat so that he could become a Jedi once he had 8 ranks in concentration. He had to become a Jedi because Obi Won gave him a lightsabre and he had to avenge Obi while if anything Luke was planning to be a fighter pilot.

Sometimes I feel like strangling people who are too worked up on character concepts and planning but Prcs sort of force them too.


Except Luke Skywalker was intended by Lucas to become a Jedi from the beginning. In character, he may have wanted to be a pilot, but out of character he was headed for Jedi. Which leads to some discussion about role playing I'm sure.

my_evil_twin
2007-05-19, 05:14 PM
My last campaign I just started, I had to fudge the mulligan rules for the 4d6 system. All three of my players rolled just too high to reroll by the book, with total bonuses of +1 or somesuch, and not a 15 or higher between them. This was exactly what I had been afraid of when I tried to sell them on a 25-point-buy, but some people just really like rolling dice. Two of them rerolled something decent, and the third rolled crap again, so she went for the point buy.

On a side note, character development and optimization aren't so opposed as people tend to make them out to be. Players generally want to play characters who are very good at what they do, and this takes talent and specialization in real life as well as in D&D.

If you go to a school to learn how to do something well, with very few exceptions, you will be taught according to a curriculum. You will learn thing A, followed by thing B, and when you're done with your pre-planned development, you come out "optimized" for whatever you were learning to do.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-19, 05:24 PM
Character developement isn't about making a background about how sucky a character is. . It's about where you can take a sucky character and how he can learn to be useful in whatever limited way he manages.

Actually, developing a character is about making a history and personality based on your character's strengths and weaknesses. What you're talking about is using a character in a defined role, not developing a true character.

Using the Luke Skywalker reference from above: Skywalker went into Jedi Guardian because he had a good strength and dexterity. He didn't do it because he was forced to. It's entirely possible to beat a Jedi as a mundane, non-Force sensitive character by playing intelligently. If he had a better Wisdom than Strength, chances are better that he'd be a Consular instead of a Guardian.

DaMullet
2007-05-19, 05:32 PM
What I use in my games now is something I found on the Wizards forums- Every member of the group rolls 4d6-drop-lowest once, and then the DM rolls the rest, to get a full set of six. Then the group votes on the results, and if they don't like it, they roll again. That way, you get the random, but not the unbalance.

Pauwel
2007-05-19, 05:40 PM
The problem with allocating dice rolls to your ability scores as written is that you decide what roll you want to apply for each ability. In real life you would just roll 4d6, drop the lowest, assign the value to Strength, and go on down the list of Ablities.
That's not very heroic or larger-than-life, however, and it seems that allocating the dice-rolls to ability scores you choose is an attempt to strike a balance, and I just don't think it works very well. If I wanted to play a peasant that chooses a career based on what he would be able to do, his talents given to him by chance or fate, totally undecided by me, I'd just play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. (I love WFRP, it's just very different from D&D)
D&D? Gimme some of that point buy.

EDIT: My English sucks right now, 'cause I'm pretty tired. Sorry.

TheOOB
2007-05-19, 06:12 PM
I prefer point-buy, I can't stand randomness on what is one of the most important part of the game.

When you radomly generate your character, one of a few things happen.

1) Your character has a balanced power level and stats that work well with their choosen class. They contribute to the party without overshadowring anyone too bad, and encounters are easy to design for them.

2) Your character has a balanced power level, but their stats do not fit their choosen class well. This requires you to either be underpowered(3), or change to a class you didn't want to play, which either makes your party weaker(and thus harder to design encounters for) or forces another person to change to a class they didn't want to play, assuming their stats work for their new class.

3) Your character is underpowered. You have difficulty performing your class role to the same level as the rest of your party. At best it is hard to contribute to the group much and you quickly become overshadowed, at worst you become a liability. Encounters are hard to design because the DM has to account for the parties lack of ability in your choosen field.

4) Your character is overpowered. You perform your class role exceedingly well, and overshadow the other players. Encounters are difficult to design because anything that is a challenge to you is deadly to your team, and you have no weaknesses that are easily exploitable.

I think we can agree that number 1 is the circumstance that is best for 99.9% of games, now instead of having a random chance of getting the circumstance that is the best, why not just use a system where you are guarnteed to get it (assuming your playings know how to spend their points).

Zincorium
2007-05-19, 06:37 PM
Used to be, I preferred point buy, for all the reasons that various people have listed. Even managed to convince the group I'm in to try it out.

Recently we had to create an entirely new set of characters. And everyone, me included, rolled. Standard method, 4d6 and all that. I had a single 16 as my only stat above 14, and I was happy with all this. Point buy I could have had maybe two 18s with the method you were using. I liked rolling better. Why, you may ask?

Lack of control. Yep, you read that right. A lack of complete control over exactly which points went where, only a simple assigning of a random group of stats. Kind of gets me out of the probability simulation way of thinking, which is fun but doesn't work well in a story based game.

Isomenes
2007-05-19, 07:11 PM
Random stats are a relic of the past and should die.

Ha! Ha! Well played, sir.

Dhavaer
2007-05-19, 07:42 PM
I don't like rolling. Partly because leaving a very, very important part of the game up to chance seems silly, and partly because it means I can't start making my character until I've found a game. Point buy means I can make a character ahead of time, and modify for the particular rules of whatever game I find. Putting everything onto a character sheet might take an hour or two, depending on how high-level the character is.
Rolling also has the problem of there not being a basis for comparison. With point-buy I can be fairly sure of how good a 16 or how bad an 8 is.
I don't see that monks or paladins get weakened by point buy, either.
Monk: 14 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha
Paladin: 14 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 14 Cha
Both on a 28 point buy. Sure, the paladin won't be as good in melee as a fighter, but that's not unreasonable.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 08:50 PM
Recently we had to create an entirely new set of characters. And everyone, me included, rolled. Standard method, 4d6 and all that. I had a single 16 as my only stat above 14, and I was happy with all this. Point buy I could have had maybe two 18s with the method you were using. I liked rolling better. Why, you may ask?

It's almost never possible to have two 18's in a point buy unless your other stats are really atrocious, or you have a really high point total.


Actually, developing a character is about making a history and personality based on your character's strengths and weaknesses. What you're talking about is using a character in a defined role, not developing a true character.In my campaign, a player is playing a Warforged Monk/Artificer. His backstory works for it very well, and it is a really cool concept. However, his stat roll was just plain unusable. He had to choose between a being stunted in melee, not using infusions, or not having a wisdom bonus. I ended up letting him reroll twice, even though PHB rules said no, because the randomness stunted his character way too far.

People have really cool ideas sometimes, and it blows when your stats punish you for using them. I agree that things can often be done, even with suboptimal stats, but the rules are meant to help us play our ideas, not punish us for playing our hearts while Powergamey McForgottenRealms is wielding double 18s in Int and Dex and playing an unhittable wizard who can't be saved against.

Dhavaer
2007-05-19, 08:57 PM
It's almost never possible to have two 18's in a point buy unless your other stats are really atrocious, or you have a really high point total.

Just to quantify this, a character with abilities 18, 18, 8, 8, 8, 8 is 32 point buy.

Starsinger
2007-05-19, 09:08 PM
Just to quantify this, a character with abilities 18, 18, 8, 8, 8, 8 is 32 point buy.

18 con 18 int, 8 everything else? Sounds like a perfectly viable wizard to me.

FirstAdam
2007-05-19, 09:19 PM
But you won't roll below 5 forever!

I had one character, who by the sheet was very competent all around. But the entire campaign, there was one time he rolled above a 5. Only once. Skill checks, Attack rolls, saves. One time, I got very frustrated with it, and went in search of a barn, I found its broad side. We figured with a DEX of 0, and it's size, it had an AC of 1. I rolled to attack. What'd he roll? You guessed it. Natural 1.

He was still a fun character though.

Jack Mann
2007-05-19, 10:19 PM
However, you're just as likely to roll below 5 the entire time if you've got sub-par stats. You're no more nor less likely to simply by virtue of having great stats. At least the guy with the decent stats has a chance of doing something useful on occasion, even with the poor rolling. The guy with two eighteens could also roll all natural twenties. It's not likely, but it could happen, and it's just as likely to happen to him as the guy with the straight tens.

I'm sorry, but "you could get really lucky" is not a valid argument for rolling stats. Random chance is random chance. It could happen to anyone. Even if there were such a thing as luck, wouldn't it hold that the guy who rolled the eighteens is luckier than the guy with nothing better than a fourteen, and thus more likely to roll natural twenties?

my_evil_twin
2007-05-19, 10:38 PM
The reason stats are so important is that you take them everywhere. They affect everything you do. They used to be random, but once you've rolled them, they're fixed.

What is this about everyone's ability to roll low being a balancing factor? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For the sake of argument, sure, the guy with an 18 and the guy with a 6 are both equally likely to get a natural 1 at any given moment. But for the first guy, that's a 5, and for the second guy its a -1. You could just as well give the first guy a d20 numbered 5 to 24, and the other guy a d20 numbered -1 to 18.

kyz
2007-05-19, 10:44 PM
I'm a sucker for rolling. I like taking my chances. My DM irl was always a little forgiving if you got overall crap rolls and would usually let you reroll until you had one or two excellent scores (16+) with 4d6, drop the lowest and had a rule of always reroll anything under 11.

Point buy is just so bland. Nothing exciting about it: you know exactly what you are going to have as far as stats go once the point amount is dictated. So boring. I'd rather be stuck with a mediocri-roll of 13-15s than a bunch of cookie cutter stuff.

Zincorium
2007-05-19, 10:50 PM
It's almost never possible to have two 18's in a point buy unless your other stats are really atrocious, or you have a really high point total.

Well,

1. Had we decided to go point buy, as we did last game, there is a slightly different system we use (ooh, big surprise there), where stats are all on a 1 for 1 basis regardless of what number you go to (17 to 18 is the same as 10 to 11) and we have 25 points to spread around. I didn't go into it before because no one used it this time around.

2. Yeah, other stats would be 8, 8, 10, 11 with no racial modifiers...

3. ...Except I was including that into the 'I could have had two 18s' because I rarely play humans. Except for this game. But that's because the DM is biased and I didn't want to deal with it again this time around.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-20, 02:49 AM
People have really cool ideas sometimes, and it blows when your stats punish you for using them. I agree that things can often be done, even with suboptimal stats, but the rules are meant to help us play our ideas, not punish us for playing our hearts while Powergamey McForgottenRealms is wielding double 18s in Int and Dex and playing an unhittable wizard who can't be saved against.

You're actually supporting exactly what I said. That being the development of a character because you got shafted on the stats, rather than doing what everyone would expect and boost your intelligence to a viable level. In all honesty, I think an inept wizard would be hilarious to play. Maybe even adding a random element to which spell he casts when he tries to cast a certain level of spell.

That Wizardry Guy: I'm gonna cast Magic Missile at the Darkness!
DM: *Rolls percentile dice with each of his prepared spells given a number.* You point your finger toward the Darkness.. And out sprays a rainbow of color. You just cast Color Spray at the Darkness.

Now that would be a very interesting character. As opposed to the wizard who gets shafted with his stats and just tries to be a better wizard.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-20, 04:10 AM
Actually, developing a character is about making a history and personality based on your character's strengths and weaknesses. What you're talking about is using a character in a defined role, not developing a true character.

Making a history is less important than making a personality. First level characters don't need more than 2 sentances of history. You don't need a 2 page backstory to make a 'true character'. I wasn't talking about using a character in a defined role, I was talking about being able to adapt a character to differant roles as the plot progresses. A character who's defined from stage 1 and never changes personality isn't developing at all.


Using the Luke Skywalker reference from above: Skywalker went into Jedi Guardian because he had a good strength and dexterity. He didn't do it because he was forced to. It's entirely possible to beat a Jedi as a mundane, non-Force sensitive character by playing intelligently. If he had a better Wisdom than Strength, chances are better that he'd be a Consular instead of a Guardian.

I don't see how what Jedi class he went into is that important. Yes, it is possible to kill a Jedi by playing intelligently. Sabotaging his ship and throwing thermal detonators isn't heroic however.


Except Luke Skywalker was intended by Lucas to become a Jedi from the beginning. In character, he may have wanted to be a pilot, but out of character he was headed for Jedi. Which leads to some discussion about role playing I'm sure.

Yes. But in a DnD campaign the DM doesn't have to tell the Players what is going to happen.

Starsinger
2007-05-20, 04:49 AM
Yes. But in a DnD campaign the DM doesn't have to tell the Players what is going to happen.

Yes, but I had intended for that to be read as the guy who wrote up Luke's character, rather than the guy controlling the universe... still the point of what you said remains.

Kiero
2007-05-20, 04:55 AM
It means freedom from the tyrrany of random creation, where characters aren't created equal. Bad enough the game rewards expertise and knowledge of the system without the luckier player getting a better character. Possibly at everything. Also means no crappy stats, closest I come to D&D is playing Neverwinter Nights, where I invariably get four 14s, a 12 and a 10.

Tengu
2007-05-20, 07:22 AM
Ha! Ha! Well played, sir.

I like my arguments to be verbose.


In all honesty, I think an inept wizard would be hilarious to play.
<snip>
Now that would be a very interesting character. As opposed to the wizard who gets shafted with his stats and just tries to be a better wizard.

While such a character would be fun, he'd not be particularily effective, and not everyone enjoys playing a doofus.


Making a history is less important than making a personality. First level characters don't need more than 2 sentances of history. You don't need a 2 page backstory to make a 'true character'. I wasn't talking about using a character in a defined role, I was talking about being able to adapt a character to differant roles as the plot progresses. A character who's defined from stage 1 and never changes personality isn't developing at all.


That's SO true. I've seen too many characters with bland and uninteresting personalities and backstories that took 20 minutes to read.

TO_Incognito
2007-05-20, 07:43 AM
I'm inclined to argue in favor of point-buy as the better system. Some people prefer roleplaying a character over whose physical and mental abilities they have total control. Some people enjoy roleplaying with the slightly reduced level of control and the element of randomness inherent in arolling for stats. It's worth noting that the latter are not somehow superior roleplayers simply because their preference is towards less control over their character.

So, say 2 players in the group prefer point-buy, and 2 prefer rolling. Which system to go with? Probably point-buy, as it's almost perfectly balanced and rolling is not. If some prefer one, some the other, and one is much more balanced, it's not hard to see which to use.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-20, 07:58 AM
I'm inclined to argue in favor of point-buy as the better system. Some people prefer roleplaying a character over whose physical and mental abilities they have total control. Some people enjoy roleplaying with the slightly reduced level of control and the element of randomness inherent in arolling for stats. It's worth noting that the latter are not somehow superior roleplayers simply because their preference is towards less control over their character.

So, say 2 players in the group prefer point-buy, and 2 prefer rolling. Which system to go with? Probably point-buy, as it's almost perfectly balanced and rolling is not. If some prefer one, some the other, and one is much more balanced, it's not hard to see which to use.

Point buy is in theory the better system. Rolling has no objective value.

Point buy can encourage minmaxing and focusing on statistical values of power while rolling can encourage uniqueness and originality.

Point buy is good if you want your character to be able to do a certain thing. If you want to represent a specific character in rules but have him balanced with everyone else point buy is ideal. However from a sentimental viewpoint such a character can be unorganic. You might think you have a good idea for a character but so does everyone who makes a Mary Sue. Randomness can help you create an original character by limiting you and forcing you to try something new.

Good roleplaying is a dodge term, as is the Stormwind Fallacy. Is someone who's character sheet has 7 Int yet he acts (well) as a more intellegent but memorable character a bad roleplayer? I could argue either way but I prefer to link rules and stats with characterisation rather than pretend their divorced.

prufock
2007-05-20, 11:08 AM
Incidentally, if you factor in the minimum scores, 4d6, drop the lowest, six times actually averages out to 28-point buy, not 25-point. Just sayin'.

I don't think so. The average roll on 4d6-drop-one is 12.25 (actually 12.24-something, but round up for simplicity). You can get all your scores to 12 with 24 points, then pump up one score to 13. A 26-point buy might be a decent compromise.

Jack Mann
2007-05-20, 12:41 PM
You're forgetting that you don't keep all results. Yes, pure 4d6 drop the lowest comes out to 25, but that doesn't accurately reflect the default rolling rules. Any result in which you have no score over thirteen or a total modifier of less than +1 are dropped. This skews the result. If you were to take all possible results from this system (so, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9 would be kept, but 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 would not), you'd get an average point buy of about 28.5.

ZeroNumerous
2007-05-20, 01:05 PM
Stuff


er is about making a history and personality based on your character's strengths and weaknesses.

As for using it in a defined role, yes, you are. Because the presented character is a wizard, his defined role is high-intelligence spellcaster. However, with his very bad stats he can't do that role. Ergo, you presented a way to force him into that role. That is putting a character in a defined role, that being the intelligent wizard. Seems that for all your advocation of rolling being unique and original, a wizard must but highly intelligent and can't be original.


I don't see how what Jedi class he went into is that important. Yes, it is possible to kill a Jedi by playing intelligently. Sabotaging his ship and throwing thermal detonators isn't heroic however.

Is it? And sitting by, doing nothing, watching someone kill the most evil person in the galaxy is heroic? Don't bother bringing up personal viewpoints of heroism. And the class he chose is relevant because he assigned his ability scores and then choose which class would best represent that. High strength and high dexterity? Why use a blaster when you can't bring that strength to bear? But vibroweapons are a joke compared to a lightsaber. Guardian it is.

If he were using point buy, he'd have chosen a character concept first then assigned his stats appropriately so that they would support his concept. Rolling? He gets two good stats, so he drops it in Dexterity and Strength and aims for Guardian.


While such a character would be fun, he'd not be particularily effective, and not everyone enjoys playing a doofus.

That's the important part. Rolling can bone you in ability scores, so why not use it to your advantage and have fun with it? 'Bit more fun than just making another high-Intelligence wizard.

Tengu
2007-05-20, 01:16 PM
That's the important part. Rolling can bone you in ability scores, so why not use it to your advantage and have fun with it? 'Bit more fun than just making another high-Intelligence wizard.

Nobody should be forced by any force other than the DM to play a concept the do not want to. I will play a doofus mage because I wanted to create a doofus mage, not because I wanted to create an intelligent mage but I rolled up sucky stats.

And if the DM forces you to play a concept you do not like, walk away from the table.

prufock
2007-05-20, 01:20 PM
You're forgetting that you don't keep all results. Yes, pure 4d6 rop the lowest comes out to 25, but that doesn't accurately reflect the default rolling rules. Any result in which you have no score over thirteen or a total modifier of less than +1 are dropped. This skews the result. If you were to take all possible results from this system (so, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9 would be kept, but 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 would not), you'd get an average point buy of about 28.5.

Ah, you may be right, I hadn't thought about it that way. Twenty-eight point buy is pretty fair anyway. I don't have any problem with point-buy, I just like the variability of dice rolling (within limits, obviously).

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-20, 01:32 PM
As for using it in a defined role, yes, you are. Because the presented character is a wizard, his defined role is high-intelligence spellcaster. However, with his very bad stats he can't do that role. Ergo, you presented a way to force him into that role. That is putting a character in a defined role, that being the intelligent wizard. Seems that for all your advocation of rolling being unique and original, a wizard must but highly intelligent and can't be original.

A wizard must have some intelligence. That Wizard with 11 Int could multiclass to fighter once he gets level 2 spells, allowing him to buff himself up with Bull's strength and be a decent fighter. I was merely saying that a wizard could become smart enough to be useful eventually, I didn't advocate it in any way.


Is it? And sitting by, doing nothing, watching someone kill the most evil person in the galaxy is heroic? Don't bother bringing up personal viewpoints of heroism. And the class he chose is relevant because he assigned his ability scores and then choose which class would best represent that. High strength and high dexterity? Why use a blaster when you can't bring that strength to bear? But vibroweapons are a joke compared to a lightsaber. Guardian it is.

I didn't mention my view points on heroism. I was talking about what would have made a good movie. He might have chosen his class after his stats, it's irrelevant, or at least unconfirmable. You're reading too much into a random example.

I haven't seen Luke's official stats but I don't see him as having that high strength. He spends most of his time shooting people or later mind-tricking them. Sounds more like high Dex and Cha to me.


If he were using point buy, he'd have chosen a character concept first then assigned his stats appropriately so that they would support his concept. Rolling? He gets two good stats, so he drops it in Dexterity and Strength and aims for Guardian.

My point is that I personally dislike focusing too much on character concepts. I used Luke Skywalker as an example because as far as the plot of the movies is concerned he had no intention of becoming a Jedi until his Uncle died. His character concept changes throughout the series rather than him being designed to fit into a certain role until 'level 20'. He goes from a farm boy who wants to join the alliance as a pilot to someone being taught by Obi Won and then eventually the Jedi Knight he becomes in the final film.


That's the important part. Rolling can bone you in ability scores, so why not use it to your advantage and have fun with it? 'Bit more fun than just making another high-Intelligence wizard.

When I was talking about the Wizard I was saying that you can do okay with bad starting stats. You'll never be a high intelligence wizard but you'll be able to do something.

Being a high intelligence wizard doesn't stop you having fun either.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-05-20, 01:53 PM
Played worse (was a pre-3rd Ed player - "stat bumps and stat adder items? Luxury!")Ah yes, 2E, where 6 Con meant the same as 14 Con, 7 Dex as 14 Dex, 8 Str as 16 Str, and well, no one gives half a crap about Charisma.

The comparison really doesn't hold.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-20, 02:02 PM
Ah yes, 2E, where 6 Con meant the same as 14 Con, 7 Dex as 14 Dex, 8 Str as 16 Str, and well, no one gives half a crap about Charisma.

The comparison really doesn't hold.

Didn't 2E only have stat setting items anyway, giving your stuff the potential to make your starting stats irrelevant?

2nd ed had rules about charisma making people like you more on first impressions. Or was that basic...

In second edition the only stat requirement for spells was an 18 Int for 9th level ones so you didn't have this problem.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-05-20, 02:14 PM
Didn't 2E only have stat setting items anyway, giving your stuff the potential to make your starting stats irrelevant?It very well might've. My 2E experience is pretty limited; I bumbled through a few video games that used the system, and have heard pretty extensive rants on it from friends and other board users.

Either way, the point is this -- rolling for stats came from a time in which all likelihood pointed towards the stats being irrelevant. Given that abilities generally aren't irrelevant in the current edition (even if they're relegated to only affecting skill checks), it doesn't make much sense to continue using the old system for ability generation

Tengu
2007-05-20, 02:16 PM
As I said *nods to self*. A relic from the old times, when roleplaying games were basically board games with the GM/DM instead of the board.

Tormsskull
2007-05-21, 06:05 AM
Its interesting how every single time these threads pop up (rolling versus point-buy) you hear some of the same stories over and over.

"Yeah, this one time I rolled all threes and my buddy rolled all eighteens, that proves that rolling is bad!"

"The highest stat I rolled is a 15. But I want an 18 intelligence. Rolling is stupid."

Most people who complain about rolling use the "It isn't balanced" approach. Then when someone suggests a way to make rolling more balanced, they still don't like it.

For most D&D players the reason they don't like rolling is because it takes control out of their hands. Rather than being able to build your character exactly how you want, knowing exactly when you'll multiclass into what and then PrC into whatever else, you'd actually have to work with the stats that you rolled. Oh noes!

I recently rolled up a character for the campaign that starts this Friday and I got stats of (recalling from memory):
5
14
13
16
10
8

I'm a halfling wizard. These stats are completely fine for me. One of the other players is a cleric and he rolled not a single negative. Guess what I did? I said "Nice rolls." Yup, that's it. Did I mope around? Did I complain that I am not going to possibly be able to contribute as much as the cleric? Nope.

I think the difference between rolling & point-buy in the minds of players is really a question of entitlement. When I sit down to make a character I don't believe I am entitled to play whatever I want. I don't believe I am entitled to have whatever stats that I want. If I roll bad stats for one character and he inevitably takes a lesser role in the damage output or combat effectiveness to another character, so what?

In my opinion, rolling is better for producing non cookie-cutter characters. It provides an opportunity to see more interesting characters, and it works just fine as a method if you have mature people playing.

Point-buy is better for allowing a player to get exactly what he wants, will make sure all of the characters are perfectly balanced stat-wise (at level 1), and allows players to create their character away from the table because the DM doesn't have to watch them roll.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. You aren't dumb or stupid if you like one method over the other. The end.

Edit:


It's worth noting that the latter are not somehow superior roleplayers simply because their preference is towards less control over their character.


Define superior roleplayers. In my opinion if one player can play a larger range of roles (f/x: characters with below average stats, characters with average stats, characters with good stats) versus someone who can only play 1 role (I'm awesome at whatever I happen to want to be awesome at) then I would say they are better roleplayers.

TO_Incognito
2007-05-21, 06:22 AM
Most people who complain about rolling use the "It isn't balanced" approach. Then when someone suggests a way to make rolling more balanced, they still don't like it.

I have not yet heard a way to make rolling nearly as balanced as point-buy. If there is a way, that's great; it could create an equally balanced campaign and still cater to players who happen to preper a certain degree of randomness in their characters.


For most D&D players the reason they don't like rolling is because it takes control out of their hands. Rather than being able to build your character exactly how you want, knowing exactly when you'll multiclass into what and then PrC into whatever else, you'd actually have to work with the stats that you rolled. Oh noes!

I recently rolled up a character for the campaign that starts this Friday and I got stats of (recalling from memory):
5
14
13
16
10
8

I'm a halfling wizard. These stats are completely fine for me. One of the other players is a cleric and he rolled not a single negative. Guess what I did? I said "Nice rolls." Yup, that's it. Did I mope around? Did I complain that I am not going to possibly be able to contribute as much as the cleric? Nope.

I think the difference between rolling & point-buy in the minds of players is really a question of entitlement. When I sit down to make a character I don't believe I am entitled to play whatever I want. I don't believe I am entitled to have whatever stats that I want. If I roll bad stats for one character and he inevitably takes a lesser role in the damage output or combat effectiveness to another character, so what?

The fact that the degree of randomness you prefer in your characters is in excess of the degree I prefer does not make you a superior roleplayer. I do not piss and moan (or "mope around" or "complain" or exclaim "oh noes") when faced with a rolling system, ever; and I'm willing to bet most of the other point-buy proponents on this thread don't either. It isn't a question of entitlement, it's a question of preference: I prefer a slightly higher level of control. We don't even really care about balance as players; balanced campaigns are easier to run and DM for than campaigns with a 18 16 16 14 13 17 and a 14 12 7 12 10 8. Point-buy systems are better for certain players as a matter of preference, and they are better in general for balance reasons.


In my opinion, rolling is better for producing non cookie-cutter characters. It provides an opportunity to see more interesting characters, and it works just fine as a method if you have mature people playing.

This is absolutely true, and probably the best counter to the balance argument, because it is equally generally applicable. If I play with a 28 point buy system, every Wizard and every Sorceror I ever make will be looking at 18 14 14 8 8 8, because it's simply the best. A little variation from there is indeed welcome some of the time, even at the expense of pin-point balance.


Point-buy is better for allowing a player to get exactly what he wants, will make sure all of the characters are perfectly balanced stat-wise (at level 1), and allows players to create their character away from the table because the DM doesn't have to watch them roll.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. You aren't dumb or stupid if you like one method over the other. The end.

Yes, I think you've got it.

Reinboom
2007-05-21, 06:57 AM
The system that I am becoming increasingly more fond of, is set arrays of stats.
Something along the lines of 16,16,12,12,10,8 (30 points) or 18,16,12,12,10,8 (36 points). The 'Champion' arrays are too high in my opinion.

For balance, I would consider these to be of equal to 2 points less than what they match up for, due to the lack of versatility alone. (So 28, and 34).

Oh, and an interesting thing that google brought to my attention http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23658

Lavidor
2007-05-21, 07:13 AM
DnD requires as much planning as you want to put into it. Randomness in character creation is as bad as randomness anywhere. Prestige class prerequisites are a sin in this respect. Planning is a problem since you might deciede to create an undead slaying greatsword wielder and then fail to fight any undead or find a decent magic greatsword. It would be a more realistic campaign if you chose to be an undead slaying greatsword wielder after finding out that the BBEG is a lich and finding an Excaliber style greatsword.
See, thats where Unearthed Arcana comes in handy (I love that book). Just open pg. 210.:smallwink:

Tormsskull
2007-05-21, 07:48 AM
I have not yet heard a way to make rolling nearly as balanced as point-buy. If there is a way, that's great; it could create an equally balanced campaign and still cater to players who happen to preper a certain degree of randomness in their characters.


The most common method I know for this is each player rolls up a set of stats, and then they can each choose any of the arrays that they want. This usually results in everyone picking the "best" stat array, but not always depending on what class each player wants to be.



The fact that the degree of randomness you prefer in your characters is in excess of the degree I prefer does not make you a superior roleplayer. I do not piss and moan (or "mope around" or "complain" or exclaim "oh noes") when faced with a rolling system, ever; and I'm willing to bet most of the other point-buy proponents on this thread don't either. It isn't a question of entitlement, it's a question of preference: I prefer a slightly higher level of control. We don't even really care about balance as players; balanced campaigns are easier to run and DM for than campaigns with a 18 16 16 14 13 17 and a 14 12 7 12 10 8. Point-buy systems are better for certain players as a matter of preference, and they are better in general for balance reasons.


As I said in my above Edit to a previous post, define superior roleplayer. The ability to roleplay, in my mind, is to be able to play a variety of roles, not just "I am awesome at whatever I choose to be awesome at". A superior roleplayer could be handed a character sheet with some character notes, likes, dislikes, personality, etc, study it and then be able to bring that character to life through their actions, voice, etc.

A superior roleplayer would be able to roleplay a servant, a king, a slave, a knight, etc. A superior roleplayer would be able to play an elf, a dwarf, a human, etc.

But, if as a player you always play with point-buy, you'll never "have" to play an under-average character. As you agreed, if you take 10 wizards or sorcerors under point-buy, you're likely to see the same stat disbursement for each.

If you take 10 wizards under rolling you're likely to see 10 different stat disbursements. Sure, they'll all follow the same general patten (high Intelligence for example), but those other stats as oddities will cause the player to think. If they end up with a 15 charisma as opposed to the typical 8 charisma with point-buy, they'll likely work that into their backstory.

Also, I would highly disagree with you on the fact that as a player most players don't care about balance. Supposedly thats exactly why point-buy is better. Players are afraid that their friends will be more powerful than them and thus they will be "useless", "ineffective", "second-rate characters", etc, etc.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 08:58 AM
Well, I don't dislike it, but my old group rolled with some very liberal and high minded ideas. Like, reroll 1s and 2s and you automatically get one 18. Sue us, we're practitioners of the 'heroes are heroic' mindset. Point Buy is great, but I feel like I might as well be playing a commoner when I'm given 25 points.

I concur, but that's why you start with more than 25. 32 is the usual standard for my group, and I've heard of people going as high as 40.

Green Bean
2007-05-21, 09:05 AM
The most common method I know for this is each player rolls up a set of stats, and then they can each choose any of the arrays that they want. This usually results in everyone picking the "best" stat array, but not always depending on what class each player wants to be.



As I said in my above Edit to a previous post, define superior roleplayer. The ability to roleplay, in my mind, is to be able to play a variety of roles, not just "I am awesome at whatever I choose to be awesome at". A superior roleplayer could be handed a character sheet with some character notes, likes, dislikes, personality, etc, study it and then be able to bring that character to life through their actions, voice, etc.

A superior roleplayer would be able to roleplay a servant, a king, a slave, a knight, etc. A superior roleplayer would be able to play an elf, a dwarf, a human, etc.

But, if as a player you always play with point-buy, you'll never "have" to play an under-average character. As you agreed, if you take 10 wizards or sorcerors under point-buy, you're likely to see the same stat disbursement for each.

If you take 10 wizards under rolling you're likely to see 10 different stat disbursements. Sure, they'll all follow the same general patten (high Intelligence for example), but those other stats as oddities will cause the player to think. If they end up with a 15 charisma as opposed to the typical 8 charisma with point-buy, they'll likely work that into their backstory.

Also, I would highly disagree with you on the fact that as a player most players don't care about balance. Supposedly thats exactly why point-buy is better. Players are afraid that their friends will be more powerful than them and thus they will be "useless", "ineffective", "second-rate characters", etc, etc.

But what I'm not seeing is how point buy is preventing you from playing a unique character. If you want to play a unique wizard with high charisma, but mediocre spellcasting because he spent his time in wizard college scoring with the sorceress chick in the next dorm, you can. No one holds a gun to your head and says that if you use point buy, you must optimize.

SMEE
2007-05-21, 09:17 AM
My group usually favor roll 5d6, drop the two lowest over point buy, but we've tried point buy at a certain point (45 points, actually, and yes, we love overpowered characters).

My only grip about point buy is that I can't lower an attribute below 8 without racial modifier or an age penalty.
Sometimes I really need to get either CON, WIS, STR or DEX to the netherealms for a concept I want to play to work properly, and unless I fast talk my DM to allow such, there's no way to have them below 8. :smallfrown:

Random generation isn't perfect as well, but it usally grants me with one or two the precious 5~7 with one or two high numbers (usually thrown at INT and CHA) that I need while it gives our munchkin fighter the so loved 18 18 18 16 16 14 he seems to get so often.

psychoticbarber
2007-05-21, 09:53 AM
Character development? Ok. You favor character development over stats, but you just spent pretty much all your gold and your few stat increases to get a useable intelligence. Why not have that wizard just suck and say he sucks because he's well and truly inept? Make an entire character background and personality based off him being an incredibly bad wizard?

There's a great post over at Ars Ludi about making PC failure BIG rather than small. An example is "Your pirate didn't just miss the rope he was jumping for, he caught it but he brought a ceiling beam down with him, causing people to scurry away!" It would be interesting to see a character who completely sucks and manages to screw up in a glorious fashion and live to see another day, over and over.

"I'm just lucky, I guess."

cucchulainnn
2007-05-21, 08:11 PM
i can't speak for anyone but myself. i would rather not play then play a gimped charter. i grew up playing first edition and ad&d and have no problem rolling for my stats. when i played on a regular basis if after rolling a charter it turned out that the stats are too low to be useful i will not use him. if the dm demands that he be used then i wouldn't argue or fuss i just will not play. i'm not looking for invincible charters but i do expect them to be able to hold there own. I'd be happy to simply roll a few charters and pick the one i like the best.

ghost_warlock
2007-05-21, 08:25 PM
I personally prefer the point-buy system, usually with 32 or more points. I prefer more high-powered games and games where characters have more skills at decent levels. Having more points means that I can usually afford to put a few ranks into non-combat "fluff" skills like Profession (cook) and the like to add flavor to the game. :smallwink: In some of the campaigns I've run, I've gone as high as a 60-point buy.

However, my current gaming group is adamantly opposed to point-buy due to their tenuous and unfulfilling involvment with RPGA & Living Greyhawk. So they roll for their stats and then end up slapping on templates to make up for poor rolls. :smallsigh: It seems like everyone in the group has their own game that they're running - all with different variant rules but all forcing rolled stats.

Yeah, last night I started playing in a "5th-level" game as a human rogue 3/fighter 2 where another player is playing a half-celestial minotaur paladin (1 class level) and another a half-celestial pixie sorcerer (4 class levels). I didn't know what the other characters were until after I'd created my character and we started.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 09:11 PM
The most common method I know for this is each player rolls up a set of stats, and then they can each choose any of the arrays that they want. This usually results in everyone picking the "best" stat array, but not always depending on what class each player wants to be.

That's not really balanced, it's just giving people bigger numbers.

Here's my solution: Make a list of stat arrays, all of them balanced via point buy and observing a couple of general rules (e.g., the number of odd stats is the same in all of them, so one array doesn't have more "wasted" points than another).

Then make people roll to see which stat array they use.

Voila. The system is fully balanced, everybody gets the same point value as everybody else, but you still have the unpredictable element, and you don't end up with cookie-cutter characters.

(For extra randomness, you can roll to see which order the stats go in, too.)

Or, for something a little more challenging:

A. Start with a 3 in every stat.
B. Roll 10d6. For each die that comes up 1, add three to your Strength. For each die that comes up 2, add three to your Dexterity. For each die that comes up 3, add three to your Constitution... et cetera.
C. Roll another 10d6. Same as before, but this time, add twos instead of threes.
D. Roll a third 10d6. Same as before, but this time, just add one per die.

There are your stats. Any time a die roll would put a stat over 18, re-roll that die.

kyz
2007-05-21, 09:24 PM
Hey, let's just give everybody 15s at creation. BALANCE.

TheOOB
2007-05-21, 09:53 PM
Hey, let's just give everybody 15s at creation. BALANCE.

Ironically thats not balanced. Some classes (Monks, Paladins, Rogues, Bards), benefit from having lots of good stats but dont gain huge benefit from one or two great stats. Other classes (wizard, cleric, druid) benefit from having one or two great stats, and the rest decent.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-21, 10:29 PM
Hey, let's just give everybody 15s at creation. BALANCE.
If balance is the issue: Point buy is perfectly balanced and Rolling isn't balanced at all.

Point buy allows you to choose your stats. Classes that only need a few really high (Sor/Wiz) get to have 1 18 at cost of lower all-around stats, and players can build all around stats much higher at the cost of having nothing really spectacular.

Jannex
2007-05-22, 12:53 AM
As I said in my above Edit to a previous post, define superior roleplayer. The ability to roleplay, in my mind, is to be able to play a variety of roles, not just "I am awesome at whatever I choose to be awesome at". A superior roleplayer could be handed a character sheet with some character notes, likes, dislikes, personality, etc, study it and then be able to bring that character to life through their actions, voice, etc.

A superior roleplayer would be able to roleplay a servant, a king, a slave, a knight, etc. A superior roleplayer would be able to play an elf, a dwarf, a human, etc.

But, if as a player you always play with point-buy, you'll never "have" to play an under-average character. As you agreed, if you take 10 wizards or sorcerors under point-buy, you're likely to see the same stat disbursement for each.

If you take 10 wizards under rolling you're likely to see 10 different stat disbursements. Sure, they'll all follow the same general patten (high Intelligence for example), but those other stats as oddities will cause the player to think. If they end up with a 15 charisma as opposed to the typical 8 charisma with point-buy, they'll likely work that into their backstory.

Also, I would highly disagree with you on the fact that as a player most players don't care about balance. Supposedly thats exactly why point-buy is better. Players are afraid that their friends will be more powerful than them and thus they will be "useless", "ineffective", "second-rate characters", etc, etc.

There's a world of difference between being able to roleplay a wide variety of concepts/races/power levels/etc. well, and enjoying all of those options as PC concepts. A player might be quite capable of roleplaying a knight, a serf, a toddler, an elf, a gnome, a gelatinous cube, with any assortment of personality traits and character flaws, and any imaginable stat spread. That doesn't mean the player will enjoy PCing every one of those permutations. And really, don't we all play this game to have fun? If playing, for instance, a dwarf, doesn't appeal to me, that doesn't make me a bad roleplayer. It doesn't mean I can't play a dwarf well; my dwarven NPCs the last time I DMed may have been Oscar-quality performances. But if the dwarven race holds no appeal for me when I sit down to make a PC, this should not be taken as a negative commentary on my roleplaying skills.

Nor should it be taken as a negative commentary on anyone's roleplaying skills if he does not enjoy playing ineffective characters who are constantly overshadowed by their party-mates because of subpar Ability scores.

Tormsskull
2007-05-22, 06:15 AM
That's not really balanced, it's just giving people bigger numbers.


But if all 4 PCs have bigger numbers, wouldn't the 4 PCs be balanced between themselves? Isn't that what we are striving for?



There's a world of difference between being able to roleplay a wide variety of concepts/races/power levels/etc. well, and enjoying all of those options as PC concepts.


I'd agree, but in the same respect, if you only enjoy to RP the "I'm the greatest (druid, cleric, wizard, fighter, whathaveyou) ever, the world just doesn't know it yet", then I'd say you are a poor roleplayer because you lack depth.

Roleplaying is about playing a character that is not you. You are supposed to create a fictional entity and then try to bring that personality to life in the game. I think too many people attach their real life selves to their characters, and as such take their characters strengths & weakness' far too personally.



Nor should it be taken as a negative commentary on anyone's roleplaying skills if he does not enjoy playing ineffective characters who are constantly overshadowed by their party-mates because of subpar Ability scores.


But the problem is that "ineffective" is a very subjective term when applied to D&D. Also, as far as overshadowing, I think that occurs more often due to how people play their characters. If you take your typical 4 person core party of fighter, cleric, wizard, thief, traditionally each has their specific role. A traditional fighter is a meatshield, a traditional cleric is a walking band-aid, a traditional wizard is a blaster, and a traditional thief is a skillmonkey.

When you get away from the traditional model (which is not a bad thing at all), things can get a little murky. If you have 2 characters that have overlapping skills (say a rogue and a bard in the same party), and 1 of the players has far better ability scores than the other, then you might see the overshadowing going on.

What I like to do in my campaigns (And I think I'll start doing more often) is have it where none of the PCs know each others scores. When I ran it that way in the past everyone focused on the game & the role-playing rather than the fact the Bob had an extra +2 than Joe, etc.

Talya
2007-05-22, 07:09 AM
Point Buy is very good for character concept design, but very poor for balance.

If you roll 16, 13, 17, 11, 9, 7, you'll do just fine as that half orc fighter, but wouldn't consider taking a monk.

If you roll 18, 17, 17, 18, 14, 12, a monk or paladin are suddenly quite viable. Some classes require better abilitiy scores than others to be viable.

Now, with point buy, a very low point buy makes MAD classes utterly unplayable, while a very high point buy tends to benefit them more than classes which only rely on one stat.

Saph
2007-05-22, 07:49 AM
There's something to be said for both ways of doing it.

Point-buy gives you much more control over your character's stats. It means you never have to worry about getting a set of stats that don't fit with what you wanted to play. It also means every character starts off at the same power level (until they pick classes 2 seconds later, at which point the power levels diverge wildly off again).

Rolling increases randomness and gives you the chance that you'll have either a terrible set of stats, or an awesome one. Often you'll end up with a set of stats that just don't match the character you wanted to play. On the other hand, an unexpected set of stats can push players into experimenting with new things and end up producing much more interesting characters. There's also the advantage that you have more variety in stats - with point buy, characters tend to have very similar stat arrays with all even numbers. Yes, I know that nothing's forcing you to do that, but in my experience that's what pretty much always happens.

Right at the moment, if someone asked me to play in a campaign, I think I'd prefer point-buy. But that said, my favourite character of all time is one who ended up evolving out of a mediocre set of stats. If I'd used point buy, she probably never would have existed. Being more in control of your character stats isn't always a good thing.

- Saph

Whisper
2007-05-22, 08:01 AM
If you like the randomness of rolling but don't like low scores just set a minimum the scores should add up to. If you set your minimum to 80 you get the equivalent of a 32 point buy. I did this and rolled 10 sets of scores. Of the ten two were above the 80 cutoff with one 79 and one 78. All four scores could make decent characters.

Dausuul
2007-05-22, 09:37 AM
But if all 4 PCs have bigger numbers, wouldn't the 4 PCs be balanced between themselves? Isn't that what we are striving for?

Um... the point of "balance" is to have the PCs balanced between themselves, yes. My point is that giving every PC +2 to all stats (or whatever the effective benefit of your system is) does not make them any more balanced than they were previously.

Say I have 16, 16, 15, 14, 14, 13 and you have 13, 12, 10, 8, 6, 6. Our stats are clearly not balanced. If both of us get +2 to all stats, now I have 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 15 and you have 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 8. We're just as unbalanced as we were before; it's just that our numbers are bigger. Instead of my stats being very solid and yours being mediocre, now mine are godlike and yours are decent.

Hence my suggestion of choosing randomly among balanced options, which seems to me to be the best of both worlds.

hewhosaysfish
2007-05-22, 10:10 AM
If you like the randomness of rolling but don't like low scores just set a minimum the scores should add up to. If you set your minimum to 80 you get the equivalent of a 32 point buy. I did this and rolled 10 sets of scores. Of the ten two were above the 80 cutoff with one 79 and one 78. All four scores could make decent characters.

I have this idea (though I've never tried it) of players being given a a points total but then rolling randomly to see what proportion of the points go into any given stat. Still gives you problems, though, if you get MAD scores for a SAD character or vice-versa.
I much prefer randomly rolling up a set of race-class combinations, trying to think of justifications/motivations/explanations for them and then statting out the one that excites me most.

I like to be able to have a go with a character concept I wouldn't have thought of myself -whether randomly rolled or pre-genned by the GM- partly because I like the variety, partly because I can never think up original character concepts under time constraints (i.e. the start of the campaign).
On the other hand, this is a case of me jumping rather than being pushed: If the dice tell me to play a Half-Fiendish Kobold Sorceror/Paladin* then I will roll them again (unless it's for a one-off comedy game).

And on the subject of 'cookie cutter' character concepts, a player who wants to play a wizard and then focuses his entire points-buy on bumping Int and dumping everything else is (I maintain) no more or less original than one who randomly rolls 18 12 11 10 10 8 and then says to himself "Hmm... looks like I'm play a wizard then. Or maybe a sorceror."

Nor are either of them less imaginative than someone who rolls that same 18 12 11 10 10 8, puts the 18 in Int and plays a Paladin. Well beyond the fact that he'll have to think up good reasons why the party don't just dump him in the first town they come to for being a frikking liability or why they would want to share any of the dragon's hoard they fought so hard for with him....


*And they have. The worst part about the idea is that - although it would never be good for anything other than comic relief, mechanically and in player interaction - it could allllllllmost work. If you stare at it long enough your brain starts connecting up the various pieces, finding explanations how/why such a creature might exist. You can almost imagine him as the star of his own anime series.

Tormsskull
2007-05-22, 10:11 AM
Um... the point of "balance" is to have the PCs balanced between themselves, yes. My point is that giving every PC +2 to all stats (or whatever the effective benefit of your system is) does not make them any more balanced than they were previously.


...



The most common method I know for this is each player rolls up a set of stats, and then they can each choose any of the arrays that they want. This usually results in everyone picking the "best" stat array, but not always depending on what class each player wants to be.


I'm not sure where you are getting the idea of a +2 from. I'll try to explain it again in a different way that might be easier for you to comprehend.

There are 4 PCs, each one rolls up a set of stats:

Set 1
12
13
15
9
7
16

Set 2
8
15
17
12
11
10

Set 3
16
17
15
13
12
10

Set 4
18
12
10
13
14
10

Now each PC selects which set they want to use. Most might pick set 3, but someone who really wants an 18 might pick set 4.

If every player selects set 3, they are all completely balanced. If 3 players select set 3 and 1 player selects set 4, I would still say they are balanced because the players had the same choices from the start.

This method keeps the randomness of rolling, but also makes sure no one person gets shafted if they roll low.

Does that make more sense?

Dausuul
2007-05-22, 02:11 PM
Now each PC selects which set they want to use. Most might pick set 3, but someone who really wants an 18 might pick set 4.

If every player selects set 3, they are all completely balanced. If 3 players select set 3 and 1 player selects set 4, I would still say they are balanced because the players had the same choices from the start.

This method keeps the randomness of rolling, but also makes sure no one person gets shafted if they roll low.

Does that make more sense?

Ahhh, I see. I was assuming each player was rolling up several sets of stats and then choosing among the ones he or she had rolled, instead of all the sets going into a single pool from which everyone gets to pick.

Interesting system, though, as you say, it's apt to result in everybody picking the same set of rolls.

rawling
2007-05-22, 06:39 PM
OK, how's this for fair?
Everyone rolls stats and calculates their point-buy worth.
Then everyone pools their stats.
Then everyone takes their turn picking one stat, in the order of their point buy, looping until everyone has 6 stats to allocate as they see fit.
The people who rolled high are better off (unless they picked some low for RP purposes), but everyone's a whole lot more equal.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-22, 07:30 PM
OK, how's this for fair?
Everyone rolls stats and calculates their point-buy worth.
Then everyone pools their stats.
Then everyone takes their turn picking one stat, in the order of their point buy, looping until everyone has 6 stats to allocate as they see fit.
The people who rolled high are better off (unless they picked some low for RP purposes), but everyone's a whole lot more equal.
I really don't understand the mechanic of how this is supposed to work; but the entire point of the point buy is that you aren't better off based on a roll.

rawling
2007-05-23, 05:23 AM
Well, we're discussing the merits of rolling vs point buy. This method involves the "fun" and chance of rolling, but makes players more likely to be a bit more balanced? I dunno, just throwing the idea out there.

OK, example. Three players.
P1 rolls an amazing 18 18 16 14 14 12 (58 points)
P2 rolls a sucky 14 12 11 10 8 8 (15 points - just high enough to not reroll by PHB)
P3 rolls a passable 16 15 14 12 10 10 (32 points)

Then the scores are pooled:
18 18 16 16 15 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 8 8
and players take a score wach in turn, in order of their point-buy rolls (so there's still some incentive to roll well). Let's just assume they take the highest available. Then we get
P1: 18 16 14 12 11 10 (41 points)
P2: 16 14 14 12 10 8 (28 points)
P3: 18 16 14 12 10 8 (38 points)

Scores are a little "fairer", but there's still been that element of chance. Fairer still if P1 decides he wants an 8 or two - or lower - to RP.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-23, 05:48 AM
Ahhh, I see. I was assuming each player was rolling up several sets of stats and then choosing among the ones he or she had rolled, instead of all the sets going into a single pool from which everyone gets to pick.

Interesting system, though, as you say, it's apt to result in everybody picking the same set of rolls.

Well, if one stat array is 10, 12, 14, 12, 7, 18 and another is 16, 15, 16, 14, 12, 13 then a Monk would want one and a Wizard would want the other.

Jack Mann
2007-05-23, 06:30 AM
I'd agree, but in the same respect, if you only enjoy to RP the "I'm the greatest (druid, cleric, wizard, fighter, whathaveyou) ever, the world just doesn't know it yet", then I'd say you are a poor roleplayer because you lack depth.

Bull. Absolute, unmitigated bull.

Not that playing only that sort of character might show a lack of depth, but that you're implying that we play that way, simply because we prefer point-buy. That's wrongheaded and insulting, Torm. I'm going to have to ask for an apology.

Certainly, we prefer our characters to be capable of filling out their role in the party, whether it be casting, melee, or skillmonkeying, but that does not mean that we make every character the best in the world. Many of us like flaws in our characters (and I mean actual weaknesses, not free feats). But we like to choose those frailties, those foibles. We don't want the dice to tell us what we're going to play. We want to make that decision ourselves. I want to play a wizard with 8 wisdom because I want to play someone absentminded, not because the dice said that's the best I could put into that ability.

I could say that you can't roleplay very well, because you need the dice to tell you what sort of character you'll play, and it would be just as accurate. But really, I suspect that you, like most people who prefer to roll dice, enjoy creating characters on the fly. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. But some of us like to do our own planning. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

If you want to argue about point-buy vs. dice-rolling, then argue about the actual pros and cons about either system. Don't imply that the proponents of one are worse roleplayers than proponents of the other. Preference in character creation has nothing to do with how well someone roleplays. It reflects a desire for randomness or control, nothing more, and nothing less.

You don't know what sort of characters I play. You don't know the games I've been in. You've never seen me roleplay, so I'll be damned if I'll let you say I don't roleplay as well as you do because of how I like to make my characters.

Ad hominem saves time, but it's still a fallacy.

Pauwel
2007-05-23, 07:25 AM
Bull. Absolute, unmitigated bull.

Not that playing only that sort of character might show a lack of depth, but that you're implying that we play that way, simply because we prefer point-buy. That's wrongheaded and insulting, Torm. I'm going to have to ask for an apology.

Certainly, we prefer our characters to be capable of filling out their role in the party, whether it be casting, melee, or skillmonkeying, but that does not mean that we make every character the best in the world. Many of us like flaws in our characters (and I mean actual weaknesses, not free feats). But we like to choose those frailties, those foibles. We don't want the dice to tell us what we're going to play. We want to make that decision ourselves. I want to play a wizard with 8 wisdom because I want to play someone absentminded, not because the dice said that's the best I could put into that ability.

I could say that you can't roleplay very well, because you need the dice to tell you what sort of character you'll play, and it would be just as accurate. But really, I suspect that you, like most people who prefer to roll dice, enjoy creating characters on the fly. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. But some of us like to do our own planning. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

If you want to argue about point-buy vs. dice-rolling, then argue about the actual pros and cons about either system. Don't imply that the proponents of one are worse roleplayers than proponents of the other. Preference in character creation has nothing to do with how well someone roleplays. It reflects a desire for randomness or control, nothing more, and nothing less.

You don't know what sort of characters I play. You don't know the games I've been in. You've never seen me roleplay, so I'll be damned if I'll let you say I don't roleplay as well as you do because of how I like to make my characters.

Ad hominem saves time, but it's still a fallacy.

*applause*

Tormsskull
2007-05-23, 09:05 AM
Bull. Absolute, unmitigated bull.

Not that playing only that sort of character might show a lack of depth, but that you're implying that we play that way, simply because we prefer point-buy. That's wrongheaded and insulting, Torm. I'm going to have to ask for an apology.


hrm? Woah, this is going to take a lot of deconstructing to be able to answer. So first, let me say that context is very important to a debate:




As I said in my above Edit to a previous post, define superior roleplayer. The ability to roleplay, in my mind, is to be able to play a variety of roles, not just "I am awesome at whatever I choose to be awesome at". A superior roleplayer could be handed a character sheet with some character notes, likes, dislikes, personality, etc, study it and then be able to bring that character to life through their actions, voice, etc.

A superior roleplayer would be able to roleplay a servant, a king, a slave, a knight, etc. A superior roleplayer would be able to play an elf, a dwarf, a human, etc.




There's a world of difference between being able to roleplay a wide variety of concepts/races/power levels/etc. well, and enjoying all of those options as PC concepts.




I'd agree, but in the same respect, if you only enjoy to RP the "I'm the greatest (druid, cleric, wizard, fighter, whathaveyou) ever, the world just doesn't know it yet", then I'd say you are a poor roleplayer because you lack depth.



As you can see from following the stream of thought, in my mind (my opinion) to be a "superior roleplayer" you have to be able to play a variety of roles. You cannot be a superior roleplayer (again, my opinion) if the only roles you play are the roles in which you excel at whatever you happen to want/need to excel at.

Roleplaying is very much like acting. If you said Arnold Schwarzenegger was a superior actor (an opinion) I would disagree with you (my opinion). I think Arnold's movies are great, they are action-packed, and I really enjoy them. But relatively speaking (my opinion), all of Arnold's roles are the same character. From what I have seen, he doesn't have the range to play various different roles.

A superior actor would be able to successfully portray a variety of roles and demonstrate a variety of character traits, emotions, etc, and make you believe them in their portrayal. The same goes for a superior roleplayer (once again, my opinion).

As for implying that players who prefer point-buy prefer it specifically because it allows them to excel at whatever they want to excel at, I am seriously shocked that you are going to try to assert that a majority of people use point-buy because it allows them to arrange stats to fit a concept rather than to optimize their character for mechanical benefits.




Point buy allows you to choose your stats. Classes that only need a few really high (Sor/Wiz) get to have 1 18 at cost of lower all-around stats, and players can build all around stats much higher at the cost of having nothing really spectacular.


Assumption: A player creating a Sorceror or Wizard with point-buy is very likely to pump their Charisma or Intelligence (respectively).



For Class's with MAD Point By is hardly balancing. It especially Benifits Class's Like Wizard, who really only need intelegance, and Druids who can Wild Shape to boost their Physical Stats anyway.


Assumption: Classes that only need 1 stat are going to pump that 1 stat when using point-buy.



With at least a 14, as the rules say, you're somewhat better off, especially with good spell selection. But you're still going to have to work a lot harder to be effective.


Assumption: A spellcaster with a 14 primary casting attribute is ineffective.



If I play with a 28 point buy system, every Wizard and every Sorceror I ever make will be looking at 18 14 14 8 8 8, because it's simply the best.


Assumption: Having an 18 for a Wizard or Sorceror is the best and if given a choice this particular poster will always choose the best.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to have good stats. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have good stats in whatever stats are going to give you the best mechanical advantages. But that doesn't change the fact that many people use point-buy to obtain specific mechanical benefits for their character.

If you disagree with that, then I think it would be hard to debate any farther. I'm not stating some off the wall opinion in the above bolded paragraph. Generally speaking, point-buy promotes optimization. Which, once again, is NOT a bad thing.

However (my opinion now which you may not agree with) if you only use point-buy, you'll never "have" to play with less than optimal stats, which is very likely to result in nearly all of your characters being optimized.

Therefore, you will never "have" to role-play a less than optimal character.

Therefore, if the only roles you choose to play are the ones where your character excels at whatever he chooses to excel at (he optimizes his stats to whatever class he picked), then you will not get any experience roleplaying a less than optimal character.

Therefore, when compared against someone who plays both non-optimized roles and optimized roles, the person who plays both types will have a wider range of roles that they are capable of roleplaying.

Therefore, a person who gets experience playing a variety of roles, and is good at roleplaying them, meets my definition of a superior roleplayer.

By the by, I don't refuse to game with people who I don't consider superior roleplayers. I don't belong to any elitist superior roleplayer club. Its simply a degree of skill/ability to roleplay. Some people are really good at it. Some aren't.



You don't know what sort of characters I play. You don't know the games I've been in. You've never seen me roleplay, so I'll be damned if I'll let you say I don't roleplay as well as you do because of how I like to make my characters.


Unfortunently you don't have a choice in what I am allowed to say. If my opinion expressed in words offends you then I suggest you ignore my posts.



Ad hominem saves time, but it's still a fallacy.


If you believe I am making an attack of some kind I would suggest you report my post and allow the administrators to handle it.


As for an apology, if you're offended by my opinion expressed in words then I don't know what to say, because I don't apologize for expressing my opinions.

Piccamo
2007-05-23, 09:20 AM
As for an apology, if you're offended by my opinion expressed in words then I don't know what to say, because I don't apologize for expressing my opinions.

That is bullheaded :smalltongue:

Quietus
2007-05-23, 09:28 AM
By the by, I don't refuse to game with people who I don't consider superior roleplayers. I don't belong to any elitist superior roleplayer club. Its simply a degree of skill/ability to roleplay. Some people are really good at it. Some aren't.

Emphasis mine.

This is where your problem lies, Torm. The fact that some people prefer to NOT have to play someone who's got a 3 somewhere every fifth time they roll a character doesn't mean that they have less skill at roleplaying. That'd be like saying that Stephen King is a poor writer because he prefers to write horror, and doesn't do Harlequin romance novels. It's a preference, just like any other, and a preference to NOT have statistical scores far below norm doesn't mean that the player is better/worse at roleplaying, it means that they don't ENJOY playing that type of character.

Pauwel
2007-05-23, 09:52 AM
I'd argue that it's easier to play incompetent characters effectively than it is to play ower-powered characters effectively (with regards to general role-playing, not combat and the like).

Quietus
2007-05-23, 09:58 AM
I'd argue that it's easier to play incompetent characters effectively than it is to play ower-powered characters effectively (with regards to general role-playing, not combat and the like).

That's a fairly good point; after all, we're talking about people with ability scores and skill modifiers well above our own. We simply CAN'T replicate what our characters can do, normally.

On the other hand, when we're talking about characters with low rolls, as people suggest makes you a BETTER roleplayer, we can relate to that because between the low stats and skill ranks, their capabilities are much closer to our own.

So... better rolls can make you a BETTER roleplayer? Not really, just an interesting spin on the old Stormwind Fallacy.

spectralgunther
2007-05-24, 12:57 AM
For a system that give you all the tools and materials to play characters of any classes, any monster race, any morality, and the possibility to spice your character with countless of feats, flaws and prestige classes for everyone's taste, I find it kinda funny that some persons talk about the rolling dice method in the Organic Characters sense instead of the Floating Reroll sense. But maybe I misunderstood.

Both system aren't fair for some classes. Dice rolling isn't equal for everyone, player with low abilities will feel less useful compared to those who rolled better, point buy is all right as long I can get your 18 for your caster but if you have a MAD class you'd have more chance trying your luck with the dice... Personally, if I had to pick a method, it would be the one that give every players 18-18-16-14-10-5 but give the DM the liberty to attribute an ability score or give you flaws so that it will synergize with your lowest attribute or alignment. The result tend to be overpowered characters that please everyone ability speaking, but also make quirky, a bit cliché but memorable characters who got major drawbacks, a kryptonite, much for general hillarity.

Old wise man nobody listen to with their low CHA. High CHA, no WIS characters who spend more time looking cool while fumbling, who look for love in all the wrong places and who "Keep on sending the redshirts!" with their Leadership feat. Sweet and well mannered half-orc barbarian with low INT, low WIS, who refuse to fight against any animals or who are scared of spiders, ghosts, books and any non hairy creatures that are smaller than gnomes. Wizards that are more buff than the party meat shield. Rogues who's low CHA are so bad they have the "Look out! There's ninja in your hotel room, James!" sneaky James Bond's theme playing everywhere they go, betraying all their intentions. Intelligent fighters who whip up crazy tactics like grapple large creatures trying to put shampoo in their eyes, strangling people with a pair of crusty dirty rotten underwear or emptying 2 boxes of cereals on the floor to detect an invisible foe (I knew all these items would serve me one day).

Dunno if it could fit a serious campaign but the several characters that we rolled with these kind of abilities resulted in the characters that we loved to role play the most with, at the opposed to those characters with no visible quality and no visible default where the role play had to be done to a more subtle level and less noticable level.

Tormsskull's method sound cool too.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-24, 01:38 AM
For a system that give you all the tools and materials to play characters of any classes, any monster race, any morality, and the possibility to spice your character with countless of feats, flaws and prestige classes for everyone's taste, I find it kinda funny that some persons talk about the rolling dice method in the Organic Characters sense instead of the Floating Reroll sense. But maybe I misunderstood.

Both system aren't fair for some classes. Dice rolling isn't equal for everyone, player with low abilities will feel less useful compared to those who rolled better, point buy is all right as long I can get your 18 for your caster but if you have a MAD class you'd have more chance trying your luck with the dice... Personally, if I had to pick a method, it would be the one that give every players 18-18-16-14-10-5 but give the DM the liberty to attribute an ability score or give you flaws so that it will synergize with your lowest attribute or alignment. The result tend to be overpowered characters that please everyone ability speaking, but also make quirky, a bit cliché but memorable characters who got major drawbacks, a kryptonite, much for general hillarity.

Old wise man nobody listen to with their low CHA. High CHA, no WIS characters who spend more time looking cool while fumbling, who look for love in all the wrong places and who "Keep on sending the redshirts!" with their Leadership feat. Sweet and well mannered half-orc barbarian with low INT, low WIS, who refuse to fight against any animals or who are scared of spiders, ghosts, books and any non hairy creatures that are smaller than gnomes. Wizards that are more buff than the party meat shield. Rogues who's low CHA are so bad they have the "Look out! There's ninja in your hotel room, James!" sneaky James Bond's theme playing everywhere they go, betraying all their intentions. Intelligent fighters who whip up crazy tactics like grapple large creatures trying to put shampoo in their eyes, strangling people with a pair of crusty dirty rotten underwear or emptying 2 boxes of cereals on the floor to detect an invisible foe (I knew all these items would serve me one day).

Dunno if it could fit a serious campaign but the several characters that we rolled with these kind of abilities resulted in the characters that we loved to role play the most with, at the opposed to those characters with no visible quality and no visible default where the role play had to be done to a more subtle level and less noticable level.

Tormsskull's method sound cool too.
18-18-16-14-10-5 is a very, very, high powered point array that is unbalanced to classes. One of my pet peeves of personal experience, although not a real criticism of rolling as a system nor anything directed at Gunther personally, is that a lot of people roll a "great set" with 2 18s, three stats 13-15 and a 10 and somehow feel gypped every time they get a decent array.

Giving you unwilling flaws is an interesting play style, but it lends more towards humorous or lighthearted campaign. Most of my characters have their concepts well-planned out, and random flaws tend to change them in oft unwelcome ways.


I have to stop and say something about what's been said so far...Point Buy does not lead to optimization relative to rolling. A Wizard who rolls an 18 14 13 12 15 8 is far more optimizable than a 26 PB Wizard. The only thing that Point Buy allows is reliable choice in character building.

If I wanted to play a clever and skillful sorcerer, I might considering going only to 16 with my Charisma so I can have a good Intelligence.

Also, just as controlling your build to make an effective character doesn't make you a bad roleplayer, purposefully making an underbuilt character doesn't make your roleplaying better, someone could still play a character with the personality of play-dough even if they are playing a Wizard with Int 11 and Cha 18. And I doubt any DM worth his salt would tell a Wizard with low Cha and a great character to "Stop being so appealing! You have bad Charisma!"

My newest character is a teenage Ninja who kidnapped a mirror holding an Evil Diety's spirit in an attempt to impress a girl, and is now trapped on the road as a fugitive, in what amounts to an impromptu road trip with a petulant and immature Diety.

So, what's the stat array is this? Strict roleplay logic states that I need to take a sub-optimal Wisdom because I made a serious, impulsive decision that was very unwise, also, I should take a higher Charisma because I've managed to become something of a friend to this diety, making me something of a charmer.

However, I'm a ninja, Charisma is my dump stat and I need a good Wisdom; and that's what I did. It sounds like minmaxing now, but frankly, the way I see it, what's really important is making sure that my character survives long enough to see my story all the way through. If I'm a bad roleplayer because my Wisdom score is higher than my backstory or personality suggests, I really don't feel that bad.