Potential new point-buy stat variant: Total modifier limit

[Shpadoinkle]

Say you're DMing a game and you wnat your characters to be semi-powerful but not too powerful, so you limit the PCs, at creation, to having total stat modifiers of +5, and no single stat above 16, before racial mofications.

What I mean by "total stat modifiers not being above +5 total," you could theoretically have, say, 16s in Strength and Constitution (two +3 modifiers, for a total of +6) and 10s in everything else bhut one stat, which is 8 (which giives a -1,) bringing your total stat modifiers down to +5. Or you could have five stats at 12 and the sixth at 10, for instance. Or you could have four 16s (four +3 modifiers, for +12 total) and a 3 (a -4 modifier bringing your total down to +8) and a 5 (-3 modifier, bringing your total down to +5)

Thoughts?

[Ruethgar]

Eh, Druids, Hengeyokai and similar shapshifters or body snatchers get automatic 16 in all mental stats and whatever their flavor in physical stats.

[Shpadoinkle]

Hadn't considered that, but to be fair that's a problem with point-guy as a whole. I don't have many people who play druids or other shapeshifters in my games. A couple houserules I have are:

1: Natural Spell is banned, and

2: If you have, say, 6 Strength, and shapeshift into, say, a black bear, you'd have a Strength of 15, not the black bear's default 19.

[Uncle Pine]

Say you're DMing a game and you wnat your characters to be semi-powerful but not too powerful,
I'd use point-buy with 28 points or perhaps less (minimum 8, maximum 18 in each score), instead of the usual 32 points I generally use.


so you limit the PCs, at creation, to having total stat modifiers of +5, and no single stat above 16, before racial mofications.

What I mean by "total stat modifiers not being above +5 total," you could theoretically have, say, 16s in Strength and Constitution (two +3 modifiers, for a total of +6) and 10s in everything else bhut one stat, which is 8 (which giives a -1,) bringing your total stat modifiers down to +5. Or you could have five stats at 12 and the sixth at 10, for instance. Or you could have four 16s (four +3 modifiers, for +12 total) and a 3 (a -4 modifier bringing your total down to +8) and a 5 (-3 modifier, bringing your total down to +5)

Thoughts?
This sounds like it'd shoot in the foot anyone who'd want to be reasonably competent in a specific area (i.e. a fighter with 16 in Strength, 14 in Constitution and 12 in Dexterity) without being a tool in one way or the other, while simultaneously empowering min-maxers compared to normal point-buy for example. In turn, this'll probably make for weaker unoptimized or "flavour" characters and stronger optimized characters.

[Shpadoinkle]

This sounds like it'd shoot in the foot anyone who'd want to be reasonably competent in a specific area (i.e. a fighter with 16 in Strength, 14 in Constitution and 12 in Dexterity) without being a tool in one way or the other, while simultaneously empowering min-maxers compared to normal point-buy for example. In turn, this'll probably make for weaker unoptimized or "flavour" characters and stronger optimized characters.

Can you explain why exactly, please?

[DarkOne-Rob]

@PMShpadoinkle I think your idea works about as well as any form of stat generation - meaning it doesn't address MAD or SAD at all and is therefore only going to work well if the people around your table cooperate.

Any PC classes that need multiple medium-high ability scores are screwed by most methods of ability score generation - your idea won't particularly help them. Monks, a particularly MAD class, will really struggle with only +5 or +6 overall modifiers. They will be functional idiots with no social skills whatsoever, but they will be reasonably wise, strong, dextrous, and healthy. Do you like this? If so, compare to a Wizard - they will be a genius with reasonable Dexterity and Constitution and not care about their abyssmal strength and complete lack of social skills (since their spells will cover any limitations caused by those low scores).

Now, this isn't any different from what happens with point buy or the overall average of rolling dice. If you want your ability score generation to be simpler, your option works. If you want it to be better, then I would recommend you keep working on it. I don't know of anyone with a perfect solution here, so please excuse me if I sound harsh - it's not meant to be that way. It's just a challenge that has stumped people for a long time...

[Goaty14]

The way I see it, this is a different way of managing stat generation. There's no particular reason for it, because as Uncle Pine said, you could just houserule the existing point-buy system (ie limiting the max base stat to 16) or simply change how much point-buy the players are allowed (ie giving them 28 points instead of 32).

Comparing the two systems (though in my opinion, the "16 maximum base stat" sounds more like a houserule stapled onto a basic system), a "total modifier limit" makes it easier to optimize several high stats, and several negative stats, because unlike point-buy, the cost of buying higher stats do not scale.
For example, with a Total Modifier Limit (which I will now call a TML), going from 16 to 18 in a stat costs 6 points, and going from a 10 to 12 in a stat costs 2 points. In TML, going from a 16 to 18 costs 1 point, and going from a 10 to 12 costs 1 point. Additionally, I should note that in TML, leaving dump stats at 8 results in a net gain (as it lowers the total modifier by 1), whereas in PB leaving a stat at 8 results in no gain. Therefore, having more dump stats is a benefit compared to having less, again, benefiting SAD classes over MAD classes.

[AvatarVecna]

"Hey guys, I think 4d6 take highest 3 is too normal, so I'm having my players roll 7d4 take highest 5 and subtract 2! Thoughts on that?"

*shrug*

It's a slightly lower-power way of generating stats, but it's also not gonna fundamentally change much about the system you're running. Maybe if they game was "all 8s for everybody", that would level the playing field a little since everybody's gonna suck, but other than that...

...actually might need to make it lower. I'm sure there's some easy ways to get enough Int/Wis/Cha that an 8 pre-race in your casting stat isn't quite as limiting as my gut reaction said it'd be.

[Shpadoinkle]

THANK YOU, Goaty14, that's exactly the kind of assessment I was looking for.

[Saint-Just]

I think it is a little bit worse than a standard point buy. First of all it would result in players always getting odd numbers in their stats (because 11 costs the same as 10, 15 the same as 14) unless they'd go for the maximum of 16. What's more important standard point-buy tries to incentivise having medium scores instead of sky-highs and lows (going from 14 to 16 costs twice as much as going from 8 to 10). Your sistem ignores that so it is slightly more likely to result in min-maxed characters. Finally I do not see even a single advantage over a standard point-buy - there are areas in which it is worse and there are areas in which it is the same.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

@PMShpadoinkle I think your idea works about as well as any form of stat generation - meaning it doesn't address MAD or SAD at all and is therefore only going to work well if the people around your table cooperate.

Any PC classes that need multiple medium-high ability scores are screwed by most methods of ability score generation - your idea won't particularly help them. Monks, a particularly MAD class, will really struggle with only +5 or +6 overall modifiers. They will be functional idiots with no social skills whatsoever, but they will be reasonably wise, strong, dextrous, and healthy. Do you like this? If so, compare to a Wizard - they will be a genius with reasonable Dexterity and Constitution and not care about their abyssmal strength and complete lack of social skills (since their spells will cover any limitations caused by those low scores).

Now, this isn't any different from what happens with point buy or the overall average of rolling dice. If you want your ability score generation to be simpler, your option works. If you want it to be better, then I would recommend you keep working on it. I don't know of anyone with a perfect solution here, so please excuse me if I sound harsh - it's not meant to be that way. It's just a challenge that has stumped people for a long time...
I'm pretty sure there's only 2 options for fixing the MAD/SAD divide. Either you make point-buy high enough that it doesn't matter(Druids are exactly as broken with 25 pb as they are with 36, but the Paladin cares a lot about the difference), or you use a different pb depending on the tier of the class. Neither of those is a great option IMO, but they're the only ones I've seen that actually accomplish the goal.

[icefractal]

I'm pretty sure there's only 2 options for fixing the MAD/SAD divide. Either you make point-buy high enough that it doesn't matter(Druids are exactly as broken with 25 pb as they are with 36, but the Paladin cares a lot about the difference), or you use a different pb depending on the tier of the class. Neither of those is a great option IMO, but they're the only ones I've seen that actually accomplish the goal.Well, "pick whatever stats you want" does solve it, but whether that works for your group will vary.

That or using a set array that's MAD-friendly, like: 16, 16, 14, 14, 10, 8
Downside, the characters will be pretty same-y stat-wise.

[Pex]

This method is almost the same as Pathfinder 1 Point Buy at 15 points. That nets you your +5 for a 16 14 10 10 10 10 array. If you make one 10 an 8 you can have one 10 become a 12 getting 16 14 12 10 10 8. Your way for that 10 to be an 8 you can make the 14 a 16 getting 16 16 10 10 10 8 or rather 16 16 11 11 11 9 with the odd number loophole. It's up to you if you're ok with this, but at least you have something similar enough to compare it to make your assessment.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm pretty sure there's only 2 options for fixing the MAD/SAD divide. Either you make point-buy high enough that it doesn't matter(Druids are exactly as broken with 25 pb as they are with 36, but the Paladin cares a lot about the difference), or you use a different pb depending on the tier of the class. Neither of those is a great option IMO, but they're the only ones I've seen that actually accomplish the goal.
There's also the "buy in two different pools" option. For example, a wizard can spend 16 points on int/con/dex, and another 16 points on str/wis/cha; a paladin can spend 16 points on str/dex/con, and another 16 points on int/wis/cha. The paladin gets much more use out of their second pool than the wizard. Essentially, you're forcing the wizard to buy weaker stats, but it's a nicer way of phrasing it.

[Khedrac]

Personally I think this method would make the SAD-MAD divide worse. Particularly it would favour pure casters over melee.

Consider 28 point buy:
Straight 10s with one 12 and one 18 is 28 points - but a total modifier of +5. This is also a reasonable build for a wizard who doesn't plan to use touch attacks (the 12 goes in Con).

Now, for a basic all-round melee-type character:
Four 14s and two 10s is also 28 point buy - and would just-about make a disarming or tripping fighter (who needs 13 int). It also just-about works for a gish type - who needs a casting stat as well as reasonable combat stats.
It is also +8 in modifiers.

So, with your system and a limit of +6, the more powerful build (18 int caster) is able to have another point of bonus for free, but the weaker build (sub-par fighter who can also cast a few spells or disarm people) is penalized by a further two points of bonus.

[Uncle Pine]

can you explain why exactly, please?

Sure! I'll be using point-buy for the comparisons below because that's the system I'm most familiar with.

The example of non-optimized (read: without max score in at least one of his relevant scores) but reasonably competent fighter I've given above has 16 Str, 12 Dex, and 14 Con. His name is Bob.

- Using point-buy this costs Bob a mere 20 points, leaving him with a varying degree of other points to put into his mental stats. If we were to using 28 total points, Bob could choose to have 10 Int, 10 Wis, and 12 Cha: Bob is now a bit of a handsome one; he hopes this'll help him score with a couple extra barmaids down the line.
- Using the "total stat modifiers not being above +5 total" system, since Bob already has more than +5 total modifier (+3 +1 +2 = +6) he'll need to tone down and draw from his mental stats accordingly. He might choose to have 10 Int, 10 Wis, and 8 Cha: Bob might not have so much luck with the ladies after all, but at least he's still a half-decent fighter. Had he chosen to keep his Charisma high for roleplaying purposes, Bob could've ended up with 6 Int, 10 Wis, and 12 Cha instead: dumb as a brick, but charming in a weird way.
Both the results depicted in the second situation don't seem to really benefit Bob from a mechanical standpoint or in terms of interesting roleplaying opportunities, but maybe it's just him. He's a fighter after all, so what works for others might mean nothing to him.

Putting Bob aside, let's see how the weakest and strongest characters we can make with either system compare to each others. For the sake of this comparison, weaker and stronger mean "having the least/most polarized ability scores":

- Point-buy (28 points) yields a weakest character with 14/14/12/12/12/12 as ability scores for a total modifier of +8, whereas the proposed systems reaches 12/12/12/12/12/10. In other words, if you're using the new system and don't want to "dump" one or more stats in one way or another for any reason your stats will be horrible. The most common reason I can think of to not want to dump a stat would probably be roleplaying a character that isn't explicitly flawed in one way or another compared to the average person, but there may be others.

- As for the strongest characters, point-buy (28 points) can at most give you two "high" numbers, an 18 and a 16, for a final array of 18/16/10/8/8/8. On the other hand, the proposed system can maximize half of your stats at the cost of... well, pretty much everything else, for a final array of 18/18/18/3/3/3. While the latter will make for an extremely quirky character, so to speak, the character itself will have much better scores in those few stats that matter to him. (Halfway through this I realised you did mention "no single stat above 16", but I'll leave the crossed out sentences to help follow my reasoning)
So, no triple 18s with the proposed system, but you can still get 16/16/16/5/5/5. This is one less 18, but arguably still stronger than what you could get with 28 points of point-buy in most scenarios as you're trading a +1 in one of the stats that matter to you for a +3 in another of those stats. At the same time, these increased higher stats are coupled with even lower and thus potentially more problematic scores in the "dump stats". Therefore, I don't consider this to be a worthwhile trade-off. Especially considering the initial goal of having PCs that aren't as powerful as ones generated with more standard methods.

[Asmotherion]

My favorite point buy goes 1=1, all stats start at 8, and 24 points. Your cap before racial modifiers is 18.

[Clementx]

I use a similar method. 30 points 1=1, starting at 8, maximum two scores at 16 or one at 18, all others have to be 15 or lower. Racial mods apply after. Gives an average of 13, and lets non humans get combos of scores not possible, making up for removing escalating cost per point.

Reducing the total points works fine. I use 24 for npcs for an average of 12.

[Elkad]

I'll chime in as well. Terrible idea.

MAD characters are already hard to make. This converts them to damn near impossible.

Straight 12s is illegal, and only 24pts. No character with straight 12s will be anything other than mediocre.

18/14/10/8/8/8 is legal for the same 24pts, and that makes a fine caster.

Statbans (including just plain old restrictive point buy) just push everyone to roll SAD characters. Give them 10 points and you get a party of 16/8/8/8/8/8 Druids. Total mod -2. Still at the top of Tier1. (well, and one wizard who is going to speedrush magic jar so he can be a War Troll or something)

[liquidformat]

I prefer roll 4d6 reroll 1s take highest 3, keeps things random while also helping to keep players away from totally tanking their stats. For the most part I end up with numbers floating around 12-14.

I would agree the proposed system seems to incentivize min/max SAD characters which seems to be the worst possible setup for a stat system.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'll agree with others saying it doesn't matter or change much. If you're looking to solve the MAD vs SAD divide, just change your baseline ability scores based on class. Points costs increase based on thenumber of points invested, so +1=1 point, +2=2, +3=3, +4=4, +5=5, +6=6, +7=8, +8=10, +9=13, +10=16 (just like the values for normal point buy). Then assign your point baselines:



Class
Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma


Barbarian
14
10
12
8
10
8


Bard
8
10
8
10
8
14


Cleric
8
8
10
8
14
10


Druid
8
10
10
8
14
8


Fighter
12
12
14
10
8
8


Monk
10
14
10
10
14
8


Paladin
12
10
12
8
10
14


Ranger
10
14
12
10
12
8


Rogue
8
12
10
14
10
12


Sorcerer
8
10
10
8
8
14


Wizard
8
10
8
14
10
8



Each class starts with a 14 in an ability score that is beneficial to their class. More powerful classes start with 3 ability scores at 8, less powerful/more MAD start with fewer (Monk being the least with 1).

Max score in each is 18 before racial modifiers. You want a less powerful game, only give like...12 points. Want a stronger game, give like 20. It closes the MAD vs SAD gap without penalizing SAD classes, everyone gets a treat. MAD classes just get a bit better treat.

EDIT: I just looked at the table, It's not the same as the one I used in the past, but it gets the idea across. Fiddle with the base values as you see fit for your issues.

[GrayDeath]

Can you explain why exactly, please?


I'll chime in as well. Terrible idea.

MAD characters are already hard to make. This converts them to damn near impossible.

Straight 12s is illegal, and only 24pts. No character with straight 12s will be anything other than mediocre.

18/14/10/8/8/8 is legal for the same 24pts, and that makes a fine caster.

Statbans (including just plain old restrictive point buy) just push everyone to roll SAD characters. Give them 10 points and you get a party of 16/8/8/8/8/8 Druids. Total mod -2. Still at the top of Tier1. (well, and one wizard who is going to speedrush magic jar so he can be a War Troll or something)

This.

Now assuming ALL your Players only paly non MAD Classes or all of them only play MAD CLasses, it is still a workable solution if one feels the NEED to limit points rather harshly (why btw?), but since all the best Classes dont really need high Stats outside of their one casting stat anyway, I really see no reason to apply this ruleset.

Except maybe for competitions. ^^

[Zombimode]

Say you're DMing a game and you wnat your characters to be semi-powerful but not too powerful, so you limit the PCs, at creation, to having total stat modifiers of +5, and no single stat above 16, before racial mofications.

What I mean by "total stat modifiers not being above +5 total," you could theoretically have, say, 16s in Strength and Constitution (two +3 modifiers, for a total of +6) and 10s in everything else bhut one stat, which is 8 (which giives a -1,) bringing your total stat modifiers down to +5. Or you could have five stats at 12 and the sixth at 10, for instance. Or you could have four 16s (four +3 modifiers, for +12 total) and a 3 (a -4 modifier bringing your total down to +8) and a 5 (-3 modifier, bringing your total down to +5)

Thoughts?

What are you trying to accomplish? Your variant reduces viable character variation and presures players who don't like playing "handicaped" characters into characters that work well with just one good stat, that is fullcasters (wizard, sorceror, druid, psion, artificer, archivist, to be precise).

[Dimers]

Well, "pick whatever stats you want" does solve it ...


or you use a different pb depending on the tier of the class

Let everyone assign whatever stats they want with the following restrictions:
*One stat chosen by the player can be as high as 14
*All the others are limited to 11 + (class tier * 1.5).
So a wizard can start with a 14 for Int and max 12 for other stats, while a monk can have max 14 Charisma and everything else 18.

[icefractal]

One thing that's tricky with any point-based system is that:
1) Some character concepts call for an actively bad stat of 8 or even 6.
2) If you want it to be usable in a crunchy way (ie. players won't decide to be weaker for no benefit), then picking that low stat should boost others.
3) But if that's the case, then concepts that call for across-the-board competence get screwed.

Possible proposal - two separate pools of different size, one larger than the other. So for example, some arrays could be:
Hi: 18/12/12, 18/14/10, 16/16/14
Lo: 12/12/12, 14/10/10, 14/12/8

So you can take the 8, and it's beneficial, but it won't get you any more 16s or 18s.

[Elkad]

Let everyone assign whatever stats they want with the following restrictions:
*One stat chosen by the player can be as high as 14
*All the others are limited to 11 + (class tier * 1.5).
So a wizard can start with a 14 for Int and max 12 for other stats, while a monk can have max 14 Charisma and everything else 18.

You've just created the best LA+1 race ever.

Dip a level of monk (or any other tier5) for 18s in most stats, plus whatever class features you can pile on.
Go wizard or whatever you prefer at L2.

Edit. CW Samurai. martial profs, armor profs, 5x20 stats. Don't think that is better than a level of monk and 18s though. Maybe if you were making a Warblade and wouldn't get the wis-to-ac?

[GrayDeath]

Obviously such a method would only work as intended if you stay in the starting races Tier. ^^


But again, Methods to limit stats USUALLY only hurt weaker/MAD classes anyway....
I eman mif a Wizard wants lots of high stats, he can get them. Druids take animal shapes/SHapeshift anyway, and Clerics have persistomanced Buffs.

[Dimers]

It's true, that method would only work for a group not out to screw each other over in a battle for personal power. Which, I mean, that's my personal preference for a cooperative game, but I guess not for everyone. :smallwink:

I joined a group briefly that used the simpler unrestricted "assign whatever scores you want" method. It worked quite nicely -- a pleasant atmosphere to play in.


You've just created the best LA+1 race ever.

Dip a level of monk (or any other tier5) for 18s in most stats, plus whatever class features you can pile on.
Go wizard or whatever you prefer at L2.

Edit. CW Samurai. martial profs, armor profs, 5x20 stats. Don't think that is better than a level of monk and 18s though.

I'd go for monk, yeah. They get fun features and ACFs. I imagine for most games aristocrat would be a better base than CW samurai.

[Endarire]

From what I've heard, giving all PCs base 18s in all stats solves more problems than it makes.

[Elkad]

From what I've heard, giving all PCs base 18s in all stats solves more problems than it makes.

I've made that argument here.

Yes, it raises the power level. It also flattens the tiers, at least at low-mid levels. (at high levels nothing fixes lack of spells).
A barbarian that can pass a Will save vs Command, make a Balance check on Grease, (both go to about 50% success anyway), and has a few extra skill points gains a lot more than the Wizard who gains.. 2hp and the ability to carry his own tent instead of bribing the Barb to do it?

You don't have to go straight 18s, so there is some flavor left. Give a massive point buy (60 or so). Or use an uber-elite array of something like 18, 18, 16, 16, 14, 12

[bean illus]

This won't work any better than the other ideas, but I'll put it out here.

28 point buy. No scores above 18, or below 8 pre-racial.

Any level that grants spell casting receives zero inherent bonus.

Any level that grants no spell-casting receives an 0.5 inherent bonus.

T1 dedicated casters are still T1.
18 14 12 - 10 8 8

20 level martials get a slow, steady boost.
14 14 14 - 14 12 8
22 16 14 - 14 12 8