PDA

View Full Version : Original System If you used this point-buy system...



dropbear8mybaby
2017-05-27, 05:33 AM
...what stats would you end up with?

This is just a test document so it isn't fancy or polished. It's just used to illustrate the concept.

To add some context, the system it will be used for is MAD (Multiple Ability Dependent) but also requires specialisation to be really good at anything, so it generally means that you want good stats everywhere so no matter what you do, you're going to lose out if you specialise, and lose out if you don't specialise. Not looking for criticism on that concept, merely hoping to get some insight into what stats people would choose given that context.

Otherwise things are similar. Six stats, 8-9 = -1, 18 = +4, etc.

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ryZmMeK6e

Composer99
2017-05-27, 06:58 AM
If you start with the standard 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array, you end up with 7 points extra, so you could end up with 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 8. I don't know what, if any, adjustments you get during character creation (e.g. fantastic or sci-fi races/species, choosing to boost one or two scores by 1 or 2 each, that sort of thing) or during (presumably) character advancement, but I think that gives broadly good base of ability scores with options for specialisation.

(Parenthetically, I am curious why scores of 11 and up are all 2 points more expensive than their analogues in the point-buy tables in Pathfinder and D&D. For instance, using a 20-point budget in Pathfinder, I can get the exact same set of ability scores. Would it not be simpler to just give fewer points and reduce those costs? What improvement is there in the system for inflating those numbers?)

jqavins
2017-05-30, 03:02 PM
(Parenthetically, I am curious why scores of 11 and up are all 2 points more expensive than their analogues in the point-buy tables in Pathfinder and D&D. For instance, using a 20-point budget in Pathfinder, I can get the exact same set of ability scores. Would it not be simpler to just give fewer points and reduce those costs? What improvement is there in the system for inflating those numbers?)

It makes the move into positive bonuses more of a jump, so there's an arithmetic incentive to take more than one low stat.

For me, the short answer is that I can't tell what I would do without more specifics about how and how much one is hurt by specializing and by not specializing. When compromising, it's vitally important to know the parameters.

So, here are a few thoughts.


Dividing the 30 points evenly gives straight 13s, which is somewhat foolish as odd numbers are of little use, so taking 12, 12, 12, 12, 14, 14 would be good if the harm done by specializing is much greater than that by not doing so.

This would cost 18 under Pathfinder, leaving 2 unspent.

8, 8, 14, 15, 15, 15 would be the way to go if the penalties of not specializing are much greater.

Yes, I know I said odd numbers are foolish, but since 15 is as high as you can go this is getting as close as possible to 16s when you progress.
This would cost 22 in Pathfinder. The pair of 8's pays off.

Modifying the above to avoid odd numbers gives 10, 10, 14, 14, 14, 15

Dropping that last 15 to 14 frees up 2 points, and there's nowhere else to put 2 points.
This would also cost 22 in Pathfinder.

Anything in between requires more information.
Anything at all may be overridden by role playing considerations, i.e. taking the stats for the character I want to play with little or no regard for optimization.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-05-30, 04:10 PM
The gap between 10 and 11 seems weird. If this is supposed to be for characters that are dependent on several if not most stats I feel like it should not be discouraged to take scores around 11 or 12. And this way they are.

I do like the marginal returns for dumping a stats. It's a choice, and it probably wouldn't work as well if you wanted highly optimized characters, but if you're looking for characters who can do everything a little and who are not overly minmaxed, that works.

JBPuffin
2017-05-30, 08:46 PM
Looking at it, I can see why you didn't change the costs for 11+ from the 5e model, but it does look weird. If 11 costed 1, 12 costed 3, and the rest were the same, it'd have a symmetric arpeggio scheme. I might actually use that idea myself.

Now, based on just that little bit of info? 15, 15, 12, 12, 12, 10. A couple of clear specialties but all-around not shabby. Quick warning about this setup - the larger your final numbers are, the less likely players will care about their ability arrays, so keep that in mind if you want these scores to be majorly character-defining.

jqavins
2017-05-31, 10:16 AM
The gap between 10 and 11 seems weird. If this is supposed to be for characters that are dependent on several if not most stats I feel like it should not be discouraged to take scores around 11 or 12. And this way they are.
What it does is force a difficult choice. The original description of the game this will be used for said that there are substantial disadvantages to strongly specializing, but that there are different strong disadvantages in failing to do so. But he didn't go at all into what those disadvantages are. The gap encourages specializing by giving a big reward for dump stats, so a player faces a hard choice, i.e. to take that reward and specialize or keep the stats even but overall lower.

If forcing that hard choice was the goal, and I suspect that it was, then the system is well crafted. It may even be that forgoing the dump stat reward is the aforementioned disadvantage in failing to specialize. If that's the case, if keeping it even has all the advantages except the dump reward, then that would recommend the last of the sets I proposed above, but for a different reason. I proposed it before as the most extreme set that (mostly) avoids odd scores. Now I just worked out the least extreme set that is just extreme enough to use the dump reward and it comes to the same thing.

So what makes one of the most and one of the least extreme sets the same? It's the narrow range. Forcing all initial scores into the quite limited range of 8 to 15 means there's only so much optimization one can do, whatever one considers "optimum."