Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zumarai 12-06-06, 06:03 AM	I know the game is designed assuming the characters are built with a 25-point buy, but since monsters are built with a 15-point buy (11,11,11,10,10,10), I'm actually thinking of going for a 15-point buy for my next campaign. Fair's fair, baby!
Lethanic 12-06-06, 07:51 AM	You ARE a glutton for punishments, aren't you? You have to know that the crowd that thinks not having at least three fifteens dooms a character is going to jump ALL over you.
Lecen_of_Mitran 12-06-06, 07:52 AM	But the MM says that they are ordinary folks from their kind, while any creature that get a class lvl should get 15,14,14,12,10 and 8. But, if you are interested on the fun only, go for it, but remember: a lot of feats won´t be available because this stats don´t match their prerequisites.
runestar 12-06-06, 07:53 AM	It may also be the last campaign you ever run, once your players are done with you... Of course, if you let them use monster PCs and houserule that cr = ECL...:P
Zumarai 12-06-06, 08:09 AM	while any creature that get a class lvl should get 15,14,14,12,10 and 8. I believe the Elite array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (25 point buy). Even with a 15-point buy, you could wangle some decent scores. And obviously you would have to adjust EL/CR's, but the whole EL/CR system is a travesty of nature as it is.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 12-06-06, 08:12 AM	Your party is called "everyone's a druid."
Findail 12-06-06, 08:25 AM	Single-classed spellcasters would manage, but you'd basically eliminate Monks and Paladins from the game, along with almost all multi-classing. It would severely stifle versatility. Incidentally, that's why I prefer 30-point buy rather than the recommended 25: not for creating "uber-characters" (the increased point-buy for scores above 14 makes this an inefficient use of points anyhow), but for versatility, with a spread of 14's.
Zumarai 12-06-06, 08:37 AM	Your party is called "everyone's a druid." The Grateful Dead (the great unwashed)?
Zumarai 12-06-06, 08:41 AM	but you'd basically eliminate Monks and Paladins from the game, It would be rough, but maybe? 25 Point Buy Monk: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 8 …Or something.
Findail 12-06-06, 08:58 AM	Well, that's 13-point buy. AC 11? Yikes.
Zumarai 12-06-06, 09:16 AM	Well, that's 13-point buy. No, it's 15. Str 12 = 4 Dex 10 = 2 Con 12 = 4 Wis 13 = 5 Total = 15
runestar 12-06-06, 09:17 AM	Well, that's 13-point buy. AC 11? Yikes. Chip in to have the mage scribe scrolls of mage armour and prot from evil to cast on you prior to combat...:P 15-point buy may not be that impossible to work round. I might play an orc fighter, that +4str suddenly becomes so much more valuable. Or maybe a half-orc and screw int/cha...with 15-point buy, that's works out to about str:16-18 dex:10 con: 14 int/wis/cha: 6, 1 floating point...wear mountain plate... A warlock might be feasible as well, dump cha too and focus on invocations which do not require saves, pump dex and int. Alternately, I could try a venerable sun elf wiz. The plan is to take mind over body at 1st lv to use int over con for bonus hp. Even after dumping con(I plan to start with con 1), I still start off with at least 8 hp, 11 with a toad familar(or +6 with the elven racial sub lv2). Play carefully, relying on temp hp from false life/aid until I reach 5th lv, then enter the necropolitan template asap to offset my crap con(and get those d12s...).
Sunrider 12-06-06, 09:38 AM	Human Shapeshifting Ranger/MoMF (add other shapeshifting PrCs as desired, e.g. Warshaper): Str - 8 Dex - 8 Con - 16 Int - 8 Wis - 8 Cha - 13 (for those creatures with abilities dependent on Cha) Stay Wildshaped all the time - for every task, there's a suitable form. Usual melee combat feats (Power Attack, etc.). Throw in Assume Supernatural Ability at some point. All stat bonuses to Con. Don't bother with Druid levels, since you won't have enough points for a good Wis score as well as a high enough Con score to survive in melee.
Zumarai 12-06-06, 09:47 AM	Human Shapeshifting Ranger/MoMF (add other shapeshifting PrCs as desired, e.g. Warshaper): Str - 8 Dex - 8 Con - 16 Int - 8 Wis - 8 Cha - 13 (for those creatures with abilities dependent on Cha) Stay Wildshaped all the time - for every task, there's a suitable form. Usual melee combat feats (Power Attack, etc.). Throw in Assume Supernatural Ability at some point. All stat bonuses to Con. Don't bother with Druid levels, since you won't have enough points for a good Wis score as well as a high enough Con score to survive in melee. How would you handle it if it was Core-only? …Besides druid.
alecthemad 12-06-06, 09:48 AM	No, no, no. This is a bad idea. The reason monsters have the 15 point array is because the players are facing multiple encounters per day. The DMG starts at a 25 pt buy for the player characters so they are stronger than your everyday monster and able to survive multiple encounters per day. Heck the 15-point buy (11,11,11,10,10,10) actually counts as a rerollable character under the the ability generation rules on pg 8 of the PHB. (I know point buy is not rolling). In fact I think it would be hard (if not impossible) to use a 15 point buy that would exceed the reroll rule. So you are dooming your players to have substandard characters.
Captain_Willard 12-06-06, 09:54 AM	I was actually going to propose an 11-point buy campaign to my players. -A manly campaign for manly men.
Zumarai 12-06-06, 09:58 AM	The reason monsters have the 15 point array is because the players are facing multiple encounters per day. The DMG starts at a 25 pt buy for the player characters so they are stronger than your everyday monster and able to survive multiple encounters per day. But some of us don't slavishly adhere to the "4" encounters a day malarkey.
alecthemad 12-06-06, 10:39 AM	I usually don't myself. But an 11 point buy still makes it very hard on your players. Arcane casters will have to invest a lot of points into one stat so they can cast higher level spells and have a decent DC at lower levels. The Fighter types will have to spread precious points across the physical stats. Forget about them picking interesting feats because some of the gatekeeper feats have stat requirements that are too high. The whole game is built around the idea that PCs have stats that are slightly higher. The PHB plainly states that most any build you could make with a 15 point buy could be ditched by a player if he rolled it. It is a mistake to do a 15 point buy. Anyway I have said my piece. If the 15 pt buy works for you and your group then I hope you have lots of fun. But I think it will lead to DOOOOOOOOM and trouble.
Seeker95 12-06-06, 11:20 AM	I do not think I would find this type of game fun, because I do not want to play a commoner with a protein shake. But let us know how it works.
kelvinaw273 12-06-06, 11:27 AM	I know the game is designed assuming the characters are built with a 25-point buy, but since monsters are built with a 15-point buy (11,11,11,10,10,10), I'm actually thinking of going for a 15-point buy for my next campaign. Fair's fair, baby! Well given the fact that you would have to reduce some stats horrifically to gain any decent ones, I would call this the muscularly/healthily/coordinationally/intellectually/common sensically/socially challenged campaign.
Selena Ombrenoire 12-06-06, 11:50 AM	15 Point buy is really low, if you try to determine your own personnal stats (as a person) you'll probably end with 25 point buy. I think the monsters were created with a 15 PB has a way to balance their CR, not because everyone in the world as to be created that way. If you and your players agree on a 15 PB, then go for it. But if they are reluctant, try a 22-25 PB. According to the DMG book, the PB is higher, but it stills a challenging campaign.
Garlogic 12-06-06, 11:52 AM	I think you should ask yourself: "Would I have fun playing this?" The answer is probably no. If you want an equalizer make the encounters tougher, don't tuin your players fun.
Sim_antix 12-06-06, 12:10 PM	No, it's 15. Str 12 = 4 Dex 10 = 2 Con 12 = 4 Wis 13 = 5 Total = 15 It is also the worst Monk in history. Not enough Str to hit all the time with his medium BA, not enough Dex to not be hit all the time with his restricted armor and just enough Wis to give him some benefit from his monk abilities, but not much.
OravennasBrother 12-06-06, 01:22 PM	15 Point buy is really low, if you try to determine your own personnal stats (as a person) you'll probably end with 25 point buy. Perhaps you should allow a neutral observer to determine your stats. Or move away from Smallville where the average is so high. See most of the 'real' people I know have trouble getting 200 lbs off the ground - which they could do if they had a 10 D&D Strength. Few are exceptionally athletic (a single nationally ranked swimmer being the exception) - most are rather pathetic physically. Mentally they are no great shakes either; I know of only a couple of people I would rate at 12 Charisma or Wisdom. Even Int, the one which might be expected to stand out as the defining characteristic of an increasingly sedentary population is seldom above the 14 range. Let's see, Str 9, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 10 - That's a 15 point buy and I would rate at least a third of the peole I know as being no higher than that in ANY category. The rest might make it above in one area to fall in another. Perhaps one in 20 would exceed the 15 point but equivalent (the aforementioned nationally ranked Swimmer who actually has respectable Mental Attributes for example) 15 point buy really looks like it does a decent job of making 'realistic' people.
IceFractal 12-06-06, 02:28 PM	Yeah, but ... you'll notice none of those "realistic people" are fighting monsters or raiding through trap-filled caves. And yes, this will be the game known as "Druid Time". Seriously, with stats like that the animal companions will be about 5x better warriors than the PCS (until they get Wild Shape). Stats: Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 8 The Wis 15 might not be needed if you can count on Wis-boosting items, but I wouldn't in a 15p game.
Deagar 12-06-06, 02:59 PM	I play video games on the hardest difficult my first time through. It's punishment for most people, but for some it's fun. Make sure that it's fun for your players, and if it is, more power to you.
Sim_antix 12-06-06, 03:29 PM	I play video games on the hardest difficult my first time through. It's punishment for most people, but for some it's fun. Make sure that it's fun for your players, and if it is, more power to you. And of course this is the default answer for everyone on anything they wish to implement. And it is good advice.
nightwing 12-06-06, 03:31 PM	15 point buy really looks like it does a decent job of making 'realistic' people. The other night I asked my wife to rank herself in the 6 ability scores, but required her to use 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8. She put herself as: str 10 dex 9 con 8 int 11 wis 12 cha 13 (cleric? druid? sorcerer?) I rated myself as: str 9 dex 10 con 11 int 13 wis 12 cha 8 (perhaps a wizard?) We were in agreement about each other's rankings. Then we ranked our 14 year old daughter and asked her to rank herself. Our estimates of her abilities were ENTIRELY different than how she ranked herself. I guess as a teenager, there are still so many different ways they could turn out...you never know. It was a fun and interesting exercise, I highly recommend it. Basically, one is forced to ask, "If I have two above average abilities, what are they? If I have two below average abilities, what are they?"
Thiez 12-06-06, 04:04 PM	I suppose people are stronger on average in DnD. You would be, too, if your job involved more manual labour and less sitting (yes, I am assuming you do less manual work than the average dnd commoner :)).
Sim_antix 12-06-06, 04:09 PM	Using the weight lifting guide lines for Str and Int = IQ/10 for Int I can assure you that I have at least 2 scores above 13. I am also fairly good at throwing things/ranged weapons/dodging out of harms way so my Dex is above 10. I am healthy but Con is a tricky one to measure so I will leave it be. Wis is another one that can be argued to death but I have always been told that I am very wise and people come to me for advice on almost everything so I will go ahead and claim that I have a Wis above 10 also. The last one is Cha and once again it is hard to accurately judge Cha (especially when some people believe looks are taken into account and others that looks have nothing to do with it) I happen to believe that it is a combination of looks and personality just like in real life. People might like someone because they are attractive or they might like someone because they have a good personality, Cha measures both I believe and I happen to have both. I am not here to brag but I am considered attractive by many of the females I know and I also can win just about anyone over with my personality. If I had to put numbers to them they would be 14 14 10 16 14 14 or somewhere is that range. I know I could be some geek claiming ridiculous things because it is the interweb and nobody will be able to prove otherwise, but I assure you this is not the case. I feel no need to lie to people I will never meet in order to impress them or to win an argument. So there you have it, I am not anything or anyone special but I have far more than a 15 point buy and I feel bad for the people that do only have a 15 point buy (excepting those who have no choice in the matter like those born disabled) Read a book, lift some weights, listen and think before speaking, eat well, throw some darts, and take up acting in your local theatre and maybe you too can rise above 10s and 11s...
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 05:39 PM	The other night I asked my wife to rank herself in the 6 ability scores, but required her to use 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8. She put herself as: str 10 dex 9 con 8 int 11 wis 12 cha 13 (cleric? druid? sorcerer?) I rated myself as: str 9 dex 10 con 11 int 13 wis 12 cha 8 (perhaps a wizard?) We were in agreement about each other's rankings. Then we ranked our 14 year old daughter and asked her to rank herself. Our estimates of her abilities were ENTIRELY different than how she ranked herself. I guess as a teenager, there are still so many different ways they could turn out...you never know. It was a fun and interesting exercise, I highly recommend it. Basically, one is forced to ask, "If I have two above average abilities, what are they? If I have two below average abilities, what are they?" If you want, try out this test. Its the best so far at rating your abilities. http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/ It seems to be pretty consistant with scores. Most people are between 15-25 points. Sometimes people who have pushed themselves in life break that barrier. I think your family may like it.
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 05:43 PM	I suppose people are stronger on average in DnD. You would be, too, if your job involved more manual labour and less sitting (yes, I am assuming you do less manual work than the average dnd commoner :)). I agree with you that most dnd commoners would be stonger than most average people today... With the excepton of people who do powerlifting, work on a farm everyday, etc... Due to training all my life physically, I am stronger and healthier than most people would be in the medieval era... But a knight that has trained in an 80 lb suit of full plate reenforced with a leather jerkin and chain shirt brandishing a 10 lb claymore would be either on the same line or greater in the strength department than me.
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 05:55 PM	The past 3 groups I have been the DM of all have stated ourselves in D20 Modern, Starwars RPG, and DND3.5 We use the test from druidsgrove evry time for our stats and as far as levels in DND, we usually stat ourselves as professionals (warrior, expert, aristocrat). Occasionally we stat ourselves (for the fun of the game) as heroic classes. Because of my devotion to martial arts and perfecting my physical being, I get statted as a warrior (or Monk in the heroic game). Most of my friends are experts (or rogues) or aristocrats (also rogues) with the exception of a few in my groups that have been in the army/rotc who come out as warrior (or fighter). As far as how many levels we start with, thats a long story... We came up with a leveling system for ourselves in d20M and basically divide our level by 4... Anyone interested in this can PM me... But please, anyone who just wants to spank me for saying that we can play ourselves as heroes, please don't PM me or argue... I understand that none of us are not Conan the Barbarian or Hercules, but for the fun of the game, its fun to pretend...:)
FloppyLlama 12-06-06, 06:19 PM	Using the weight lifting guide lines for Str and Int = IQ/10 for Int I can assure you that I have at least 2 scores above 13. I am also fairly good at throwing things/ranged weapons/dodging out of harms way so my Dex is above 10. I am healthy but Con is a tricky one to measure so I will leave it be. Wis is another one that can be argued to death but I have always been told that I am very wise and people come to me for advice on almost everything so I will go ahead and claim that I have a Wis above 10 also. The last one is Cha and once again it is hard to accurately judge Cha (especially when some people believe looks are taken into account and others that looks have nothing to do with it) I happen to believe that it is a combination of looks and personality just like in real life. People might like someone because they are attractive or they might like someone because they have a good personality, Cha measures both I believe and I happen to have both. I am not here to brag but I am considered attractive by many of the females I know and I also can win just about anyone over with my personality. If I had to put numbers to them they would be 14 14 10 16 14 14 or somewhere is that range. I know I could be some geek claiming ridiculous things because it is the interweb and nobody will be able to prove otherwise, but I assure you this is not the case. I feel no need to lie to people I will never meet in order to impress them or to win an argument. So there you have it, I am not anything or anyone special but I have far more than a 15 point buy and I feel bad for the people that do only have a 15 point buy (excepting those who have no choice in the matter like those born disabled) Read a book, lift some weights, listen and think before speaking, eat well, throw some darts, and take up acting in your local theatre and maybe you too can rise above 10s and 11s... If you're that modest why didn't you use a friend as an example? You obviously think you're someone special, despite your comment to the contrary, simply because you believe yourself to be: Wise, intelligent, charming, strong, quick and well coordinated. I love how every time this discussion comes up someone jumps in boasting (but of course, they aren't really boasting because, hey, they said so and we're taking them at their word on all of this).
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 07:17 PM	If you're that modest why didn't you use a friend as an example? You obviously think you're someone special, despite your comment to the contrary, simply because you believe yourself to be: Wise, intelligent, charming, strong, quick and well coordinated. I love how every time this discussion comes up someone jumps in boasting (but of course, they aren't really boasting because, hey, they said so and we're taking them at their word on all of this). Why get so hostile because someone claimes they may have better stats than a commoner? It isn't like he claimed to be a straight 18s with 50 heroic levels... Lets not start a flame war on who is better than who. He does have a point. Some people do have better scores than others... and other people have just commoner scores. Heck, go to wal-mart and look around. You will see people who couldnt have over a 10s in anything while others in there could have multiple 16s. I could take and start posting my entire group's stats as we were stated out as well as on druidsgrove as well as others outside of our group that volunteered their time to take the test (our parents, non-gamer friends, etc...) and you will see people ranging from 12-60 point buy... I come out better than MOST people in MY group, but there have been two guys who are in the military and were overachievers in highschool who tried out this test and trumped me (one of them had straight 16s and didn't fudge anything [60 pt buy]). I'M NOT HERE TO BOAST, I'm simply trying to give some perspective on the topic. If we all are supposed to be commoners with commoner stats I couldn't bench 350lbs and my friend who scored 168 on his IQ test (mensa official, not an internet imitation) wouldn't have a 17 INT. The commoners in the NPC section are statted so that the Heroes in the campaign are not overshined by a commoner who went to the gym a few times each week. Keep that in mind. Now back on topic, I have played 15, 20, 25, 28,32, 40, and 50 point games. For balance the heroes should be built at 25... this is what the playtesters used and what 3.5 is built around. In the older editions, NPC monsters could have anywhere between 10-50 points building them and things were not as balanced. 3.5 however, is balanced by using point buy. If you are still going to play a "commoner" game, don't send them up against a beholder... maybe some orcs or a heroic character (built with 25point buy). Otherwise the players won't last long enough to enjoy the game.
OravennasBrother 12-06-06, 07:17 PM	Using the weight lifting guide lines If I had to put numbers to them they would be 14 14 10 16 14 14 or somewhere is that range. . Whatever you say. I had a Professor of Mathematics when I was in School who had put himself through College with an athletic scholarship. HE was also a definite genius - tenured at 30 with an astounding ability to bridge Applied and Theoretical aspects. Clearly above a 15 point buy - and also clearly NOT THE NORM. Take a different example - a little guy named Audy Murphy. So sick on the transit to North Africa that his CO put a man to watch out for "the little guy." Yet with "Average to Low" physical attributes he was the most decorated American Soldier of WWII. Playing characters on a 15 point buy (except for the min-max druid players) allows you the challenge of trying to match that level of courage. Well except that of course it requires no bravery from the player, soley from the character.
Sim_antix 12-06-06, 08:28 PM	Despite knowing that I would be flamed for it I posted my honest opinion on my own stats using how much I can bench and carry to determine Str and IQ/10 for Int and then trying to accurately guage how wise I am as compared to how intelligent I am as compared to how charming I can be. I did this to dispute these ridiculous claims that since 10s & 11s are the base commoner scores that nobody in real life can have scores above 13 and if they do they don't have 2 scores that high or they are the ultra rare exceptions. The truth is that anyone can have decent scores depending on how hard they wish to work at improving those scores.
MerlintheTuna 12-06-06, 08:59 PM	Honestly, I think the whole INT*10 = IQ thing is fairly bogus. Is a 3 INT character pretty much mentally retarded? Yeah, sure. But an IQ of 30 is pretty harsh though. Wikipedia's got that listed as "severe mental retardation: IQ 20–25 to 35–40; can be taught basic life skills and simple tasks with supervision" I've no problem with Bash the Barbarian needing help stringing together a sentence, but this puts him at needing to be spoon fed, and might need assistance walking. I much prefer 50 + INT*5. It helps keep the low INT characters from looking so incredibly moronic, and you also don't wind up with "Okay, the Balor has 24 INT, so he's about two and a half times smarter than the average guy." He instead ends up with an IQ of 170, putting him well into the realm of being a genius but not into the impossible-to-simulate realm of brainpower.
vagabonvoid 12-06-06, 09:03 PM	Honestly, I think the whole INT*10 = IQ thing is fairly bogus. Is a 3 INT character pretty much mentally retarded? Yeah, sure. But an IQ of 30 is pretty harsh though. Wikipedia's got that listed as "severe mental retardation: IQ 20–25 to 35–40; can be taught basic life skills and simple tasks with supervision" I've no problem with Bash the Barbarian needing help stringing together a sentence, but this puts him at needing to be spoon fed, and might need assistance walking. I much prefer 50 + INT*5. It helps keep the low INT characters from looking so incredibly moronic, and you also don't wind up with "Okay, the Balor has 24 INT, so he's about two and a half times smarter than the average guy." He instead ends up with an IQ of 170, putting him well into the realm of being a genius but not into the impossible-to-simulate realm of brainpower. I really like your system for Int, its definatly more realistic then a person with int as a dump stat being forrest gump.
Sim_antix 12-06-06, 09:51 PM	Yeah except a 3 Int is one step above ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE! Think about it logically and you will see that Int 22 is a little high for someone like me who has a high IQ but I am no Hawking or Davinci. Also a 30 IQ seems perfect for the brute who is too stupid to even read or write but can swing a sword or axe. If they wish to be above the status of someone who needs help dressing themeselves than they can put a higher score in Int (I don't know how they got a 3 to begin with but whatever)
Sae Cael Oanar 12-06-06, 09:58 PM	forrest gump was plenty smart.
Sphyre 12-06-06, 10:13 PM	Your party is called "everyone's a druid." if they survive to level 5 to get wildshape, then they'll actually be able to function pretty well then :) Then again spontaneous summoning works wonders too, and you can use that at all levels....
FloppyLlama 12-06-06, 10:18 PM	Why get so hostile because someone claimes they may have better stats than a commoner? It isn't like he claimed to be a straight 18s with 50 heroic levels... Lets not start a flame war on who is better than who. My point was that he was not only making an argument that didn't follow, but he was doing so and in a rather, dare I say it, haughty manner. No one's attempting to argue they're better than anyone (or at least I'm not, he might have better stats than me). He does have a point. Some people do have better scores than others... The issue is simply this: He jumps onto the thread to say "Hey, I'm exceptional". That wouldn't be an issue, if it had anything to do with the topic at hand. Oravennas best summed it up: Clearly above a 15 point buy - and also clearly NOT THE NORM. Not only did he provide anecdotal evidence, he provided anecdotal evidence that he could not sufficiently establish as having any relation to the norm. Thus, all that is left of his post is how great his stats would be in D&D terms.
angryman 12-06-06, 10:23 PM	If I wanted to play with gimp stats, I'd go to work in real life. Actually my stats are much better than 15 point buy, and that's in real life.
ChaoticGood 12-06-06, 10:49 PM	On a purely personal level, I've found the Int = IQ/10 equation to be fairly accurate. I regularly score a 14 for Int on the various character tests, and IQ tests consistently rank me in the 137-141 range, i.e: the low end of a 14 Int. As was already pointed out, an Int of 3 is one step above an animal; so yes, it's accurate to say that an Int 3 character needs help feeding and dressing itself if it hopes to be "civilized." The 3 - 18 scale is designed to represent the WHOLE spectrum of human intelligence, not just the spectrum of heroic adventurers. Whether you like it or not, the severely mentally retarded kids with Int 3 are human, too. :P
Sunrider 12-07-06, 01:36 AM	On the subject of IQ and Intelligence, may I refer you to this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=715500) thread. Basically, if an average person rolls 3d6 for all stats (which gives an average of 10.5), these are the results you'd get (using an IQ scale with mean 100 and SD 15 - if you use an IQ scale with SD 27, adjust accordingly). A less 'extreme' scale such as this also explains the fact that orcs, etc., while not as intelligent in general as humans, have still managed to progress somewhat and learned to use technology, while high-Int characters are still human...
Zumarai 12-07-06, 04:45 AM	Please, please, people - I do not want this thread to turn into one of those revolting, ego-massing, rate/score yourself in real life threads. Back to the 15-Point Buy campaign original topic, please.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 05:13 AM	Read a book, lift some weights, listen and think before speaking, eat well, throw some darts, and take up acting in your local theatre and maybe you too can rise above 10s and 11s... Solid advice. I should take it. The problem with comparing stats to real life abilities is the fact that they are often balanced out. I mean strength is easy. See what you can lift and you have your strength score. I end up at a 12 Dexterity is more difficult. I personally am quite agile, but I have poor aim, probably balancing this out to a 10. Constitution. I am quite resistant to disease, I hardly ever catch anything. When everybody eats something thats spoiled, they all get sick and I don't. But when we go running I am one of the first to start beathing heavily. So it probably evens out to a 10. Intelligence. I have done several IQ test and I have an IQ of 127. I don't know what the score for that would be in D&D, maybe 14? Wisdom. I am quite intuitive and people say, can be wise. I am however also absent minded (concentration problem) and my senses are not very good (especially very bad eyesight). Probably evens out at about 10. Charisma. I am a likable fellow, but I don't have the kind of personality that easily wins over everybody. Just average I guess, so again a 10. So what is that? 12 10 10 14 10 10 16 point buy. Very average, but as you can see from the decriptions I am still very good at some things. It's just balanced out by the things I am not good at. mind you, I would never choose an adventuring career for myself. If I'd have to face any of the monsters in D&D, i'd run like hell.
Zumarai 12-07-06, 05:22 AM	I mean strength is easy. See what you can lift and you have your strength score. I end up at a 12 Dexterity is more difficult. I personally am quite agile, but I have poor aim, probably balancing this out to a 10. Constitution. I am quite resistant to disease, I hardly ever catch anything. When everybody eats something thats spoiled, they all get sick and I don't. But when we go running I am one of the first to start beathing heavily. So it probably evens out to a 10. Intelligence. I have done several IQ test and I have an IQ of 127. I don't know what the score for that would be in D&D, maybe 14? Wisdom. I am quite intuitive and people say, can be wise. I am however also absent minded (concentration problem) and my senses are not very good (especially very bad eyesight). Probably evens out at about 10. Charisma. I am a likable fellow, but I don't have the kind of personality that easily wins over everybody. Just average I guess, so again a 10. I repeat: can we please stop with the silly, rating yourself in D&D terms/mechanics. It always comes off as boastful and makes me feel creepy. Please stop. Back to the original topic.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 05:23 AM	Please, please, people - I do not want this thread to turn into one of those revolting, ego-massing, rate/score yourself in real life threads. Back to the 15-Point Buy campaign original topic, please. Oops sorry, I got carried away. I am a fan of high stats. Well over elite. In point buy campaigns I usually allow 36 point buy. I like the heroes to be strong fast and intelligent. That's just me. Maybe I read too many comic books when I was young. I wouldn't like a 15 point buy campaign. Of course it is possible and a matter of taste. But 25 would be the minimum for me.
Zumarai 12-07-06, 05:45 AM	I am a fan of high stats. Well over elite. In point buy campaigns I usually allow 36 point buy. I like the heroes to be strong fast and intelligent. That's just me. Maybe I read too many comic books when I was young. I foolishly let my players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two in my current campaign. Well, one of the players wound up with a 67-point buy equivalent (18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 13). So we agreed after quite a few sessions, that it was only fair to bring the other 3 players up to a 67-point buy. Even though the campaign is going swimmingly, next time I'm implementing point buy. I've been playing since 1st edition when there was no point buy, but now that I've seen its glory, I will never go back to "rolling" for scores. I don't want to turn this into a point buy vs. rolling; there is already a hot thread on that right now. It's a matter of personal choice/opinion, which you prefer. I don't actually think I would run a 15-point buy campaign, but I would love for my next campaign to be 25-point buy, as that is what the game is designed around (EL/CR’s etc). Or maybe old school – 3d6 in order – take it!
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 05:53 AM	One of the problems I have with a low point buy, is the dump stats. Usually everybody but the sorcerer or bard ends up with 8 or lower charisma. Very many fighter types end up with 8 int, wis and cha and 10 dex, just to have an 18 str and 16 con. Etcetera.
Thiez 12-07-06, 07:44 AM	Dumping int gives fighters even less skillpoints than they normally get, and prevents them from getting Combat Expertise and similar stuff. High dex scores are nice for two-weapon fighting. It is rarely worth buying an 18 with point buy.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 07:54 AM	Maybe I overstated it, but with low point buy you do see more stereotypical dumb fighters, frail wizards etc. And a lot of low charisma.
Lethanic 12-07-06, 08:03 AM	One of the problems I have with a low point buy, is the dump stats. Usually everybody but the sorcerer or bard ends up with 8 or lower charisma. Very many fighter types end up with 8 int, wis and cha and 10 dex, just to have an 18 str and 16 con. Etcetera. And when you roll yiou don't have dump stats: As in - those same classes don't put the same numbers in the same slots? And with point buy you CAN'T end up with lower than eight. Eight is the STARTING point.
Zumarai 12-07-06, 08:09 AM	One of the problems I have with a low point buy, is the dump stats. Usually everybody but the sorcerer or bard ends up with 8 or lower charisma. Very many fighter types end up with 8 int, wis and cha and 10 dex, just to have an 18 str and 16 con. Etcetera. As for the fighter - there are many different types. If one were going down the TWF path, he/she would obviously pump Dex, and another fighter that was going for Combat Expertise etc, would pump Int. And if you wanted an exalted monk (touch of golden ice etc), you would have to pump Cha. So even with point buy I don't believe all characters of a certain class look the same, it depends on the concept/theme/build etc. I think my players might balk at a 25-point campaign, so I'll try and see if I can squeeze in a 28 point buy. Actually, I would like to try and pull off a 22-point buy.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 08:26 AM	As for the fighter - there are many different types. If one were going down the TWF path, he/she would obviously pump Dex, and another fighter that was going for Combat Expertise etc, would pump Int. And if you wanted an exalted monk (touch of golden ice etc), you would have to pump Cha. With 15 pt buy you aren't able to pump one stat without totally hosing the rest. If you want a 14 the rest is all going to be 10 or lower. For a monk that means you get no use out of some abilities and will be a very poor combatant. Same goes for a fighter with combat expertise. He'll need a 13 int. that means he'll have virtually no bonuses to hit, damage, ac, hitpoints or anything else that is important to a fighter. With 22 point buy this becomes a little better, with 25 you have a good balance. I think a fighter in a campaign might be a soldier or something. Soldiers train or fight a lot so should have somewhat higher stats.
OravennasBrother 12-07-06, 11:36 AM	Despite knowing that I would be flamed for it I posted Not to flame or anything, but if you knew (from your Int) but lacked the sense (from Wis) to avoid posting, then would htat not of itself argue that your Wisdom is BELOW the 14 you want to believe? 15 Point buy generates most people; if the issue of "DUmp" stats is TOO upsetting, you might go to a 3 point buy with everything starting at 10 (at which point there is no need to worry about the cost to go above 13) and only human characters allowed (which avoids the whole - "he got to have a 15 strength and all he sacrificed was his Int and Cha, Waaaaa!!!!") Do I truly need the Sarcasm Smilie at this point? Sure you can go with a 36+ Point buy and create Conanesqu characters, or you can go with lower point buy and get realistic characters. Yes Leonardo DaVinci was Strong (bent horseshoes with a single hand as a party trick) Handsome (may have been a model in his youth) Smart (come on he defines the term Renaissance man) healthy (Survived to a ripe old age in the 15th/16th centuries instead of falling to disease) was dextrous enough to manage incredible paintings and sculptures (from the fragments which survive) and was Wise enough to not make anyone so mad about his superiority that he got burned as a heretic. And to top it all off he was noted as being exceptional. But except for a stint in one of the Borgia's armies (as an engineer IIRC) he never 'went out adventuring' (that was reserved for the LESS promising specimens as anyone capable enough would get a good paying SAFE job)
Mr. VanderMeer 12-07-06, 01:14 PM	I'm sorry if it seems as if I'm saying you shouldn't play with 15pt buy. I am a firm believer that every group should play as they like. I was just saying why I personally thoroughly dislike 15pt buy.
Sim_antix 12-07-06, 02:40 PM	Not to flame or anything, but if you knew (from your Int) but lacked the sense (from Wis) to avoid posting, then would htat not of itself argue that your Wisdom is BELOW the 14 you want to believe? Quite the opposite I am afraid. I posted something that I believed contributed to the conversation and although I knew I would be flamed for it, I do not care. Flames bother me not but of course are a violation of CoC and will only get the flamer warned. So you see it is not I who lacks the Wis but the ones who choose to flame, even had enough Wis to know that despite being against the CoC some posters would not be able to stop themselves from flaming.
OravennasBrother 12-07-06, 05:26 PM	Quite the opposite ... know that despite being against the CoC some posters would not be able to stop themselves from flaming. Not to nit-pick but baiting others into flaming is also a CoC violation, and while some may find it amusing to try and walk a line on the issue, others might find that attitude immature. Further you put "attributes" of an individual -real or imagined- ( the attributes, since you are posting we can probably conclude there is a real person somewhere involved) - as though they were relevant to the discussion of how 15 points would impact the game or how it simulated the population in general. Any individual data point can be an exception to a statistical phenomenon. It is possible to determine the most probable distribution of outcomes for six trials of any given method of rolling dice to generate numbers between 3 and 18, yet that would be pointless as the chance of even the most likely distribution would be small enough that you wold not expect any sample to actually have those precise numbers. Sorry mistake - I would not expect it, I cannot say what you would expect. Nonetheless it is easily demonstrated that more points for character creation reduces the challenge of any given encounter, and hence the campaign as a whole. [Yes the DM can adjust for higher attributes, but for any PARTICULAR encounter, a group of PC's with better attributes will have less of a challenge than one with weaker attributes - lucky criticals etc. notwithstanding.] If a goal as a player is to face greater chalenges then playing with "Less Powerful" is an easy method to achieve that goal. If OTOH the goal is to casually defeat any threat then go with straight 18's, use the Gestalt rules at full force, give Max HP for players on EVERY HD, and triple the treasure allotment for any particular level. That should allow even a neophyte to persevere against CR appropriate threats.
Sim_antix 12-07-06, 06:03 PM	Not to nit-pick but baiting others into flaming is also a CoC violation, and while some may find it amusing to try and walk a line on the issue, others might find that attitude immature. I was not baiting. Baiting is posting something in the hopes of getting flamed, I honestly hoped that everyone would refrain from such behavior but my Wis told me that they would not. Never the less I posted what I had to say knwoing I would get flamed because I believe it is relevant to a discussion about starting points to factor in that there is no way I would want to play a character that was worse than my own abilities across the board. I would play a character with less in any given ability score but not every single one. Further you put "attributes" of an individual -real or imagined- ( the attributes, since you are posting we can probably conclude there is a real person somewhere involved) - as though they were relevant to the discussion of how 15 points would impact the game or how it simulated the population in general. Any individual data point can be an exception to a statistical phenomenon. It is possible to determine the most probable distribution of outcomes for six trials of any given method of rolling dice to generate numbers between 3 and 18, yet that would be pointless as the chance of even the most likely distribution would be small enough that you wold not expect any sample to actually have those precise numbers. Sorry mistake - I would not expect it, I cannot say what you would expect. Nonetheless it is easily demonstrated that more points for character creation reduces the challenge of any given encounter, and hence the campaign as a whole. [Yes the DM can adjust for higher attributes, but for any PARTICULAR encounter, a group of PC's with better attributes will have less of a challenge than one with weaker attributes - lucky criticals etc. notwithstanding.] If a goal as a player is to face greater chalenges then playing with "Less Powerful" is an easy method to achieve that goal. If OTOH the goal is to casually defeat any threat then go with straight 18's, use the Gestalt rules at full force, give Max HP for players on EVERY HD, and triple the treasure allotment for any particular level. That should allow even a neophyte to persevere against CR appropriate threats. This is exactly why I feel rolling is best. It is random as to what scores you get while still allowing you the freedom to place them where you want. If the DM wants to present a greater challenge to PCs with high stats then he can craft the encounters to throw more of what challenges them at them. It's not like you have to restrict PCs to never being able to play Monks or Paladins and never having a single score above 18.
Always-Late 12-07-06, 07:02 PM	It is also the worst Monk in history. Not enough Str to hit all the time with his medium BA, not enough Dex to not be hit all the time with his restricted armor and just enough Wis to give him some benefit from his monk abilities, but not much.Well, duh it's the worst monk in history. Were you really expecting the 15 point buy monk to be better than the 28 one? I didn't think so. We all know 15 point buy sucks. Cha 14 Dex 12 Str 9 Con 10 Wis 8 Int 11 Kobold Sorceror.
Captain_Willard 12-08-06, 04:39 AM	With all of this kvetching going on, it's actually making me really want to try a 15-Point Buy campaign. …Just out of curiosity. I would have to approach my players from a "Just try it as a one off, guys." angle, and than try to suck them in and see the glory that is point buy.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-08-06, 04:54 AM	With all of this kvetching going on, it's actually making me really want to try a 15-Point Buy campaign. …Just out of curiosity. I would have to approach my players from a "Just try it as a one off, guys." angle, and than try to suck them in and see the glory that is point buy. In that case, you should go all the way; 15pt buy and NPC classes. Those PC classes are just too overpowered. No realism there. A party consisting of a warrior, an expert, an adept and a commoner. That's real people for you!
Zumarai 12-08-06, 05:53 AM	In that case, you should go all the way; 15pt buy and NPC classes. Those PC classes are just too overpowered. No realism there. A party consisting of a warrior, an expert, an adept and a commoner. That's real people for you! That's an excellent idea! But I think a better party of four would be: Adept Aristocrat Expert Warrior That would be a lovely party. Or I could use the generic bad-boys from UA.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-08-06, 07:44 AM	If you play in Eberron you have the additional option of the Magewright. They're really cool.
OravennasBrother 12-08-06, 09:38 AM	A party consisting of a warrior, an expert, an adept and a commoner. That's real people for you! Isn't an adept a spell using class, thus making them a not-so-real person? However the others, much like the 15 point buy, ARE more in line with real people than the PC Classes. AS for the inevitable claim "I want a character comparable to myself and I cna't be built on 15 points" - perhaps then the answer is for the DM to say "OK, if we can agree on your attributes, you can play a 1st level commoner with you own attributes. After all you aren't a trained soldier, so no warrior class, and you're not a licensed professional, so no expert, and you're not a noble so no aristocrat."
Sim_antix 12-08-06, 02:43 PM	I must say again, I would play a character with worse stats than my own, just not across the board worse than my own. I am no superman, I am an average guy who took the time to read when he was younger and lift weights when he was older. I am naturally gifted in some areas and I worked hard in others. 15 point buys are fine for those who believe in the frality of the human condition, I however do not.
FoxmanFX 12-08-06, 03:17 PM	Here is a quick idea start with 8-12 in all stats (figure out a system - maybe an assigned array like 12,11,10,10,9,8 - or even 13,12,11,10,9,8 - 13 to get feats) and every level (instead of every 4) player gets a stat point. More about growing organicly and improving as a hero ;)
OravennasBrother 12-08-06, 03:53 PM	and every level (instead of every 4) player gets a stat point. That would lead VERY high attributes after enough levels. The point of playing "Normal People" is (presumably) to play "Normal People" not "Normal People rapidly turning into superheroes," though such an attribute advancement scheme could work IF that was the desired goal. ANother option for characters growing into "heroic" stature from niitial "average" joes would be to start with a 15 point buy, but add 1 purchase point (using the normal rules for adding attributes under the point buy scheme, but remembering that the attribute modifier every 4th level is tarcked separately) at every level gained from 2nd through 11 level. Characters would at that point be indistinguishable from typical 25 point buy characters, but you wold have had the entertaining challenge of survivng with lower attributes in the initial levels. OT WARNING OT It seems terribly redundant to state, but an individual claiming to be highly gifted; above the norm in every area, not just intellect, who proceeds to proclaim that they are "average" should be encouraged to look up "contradiction" in the dictionary. An individual's inability to perceive the axiomatic point that someone above average in every measurable way is not average would, by itself, seem to indicate someone lacking in intellect.
Sim_antix 12-08-06, 03:57 PM	If you view 10s as norm, which I do not. I view my strength as average and my intellect as slightly above average. Thats my whole point, 10s across the board is a rather pathetic individual.
Lethanic 12-08-06, 04:53 PM	If you view 10s as norm, which I do not. I view my strength as average and my intellect as slightly above average. Thats my whole point, 10s across the board is a rather pathetic individual. By DEFINITION tens are average. So you are saying that anyone who isn't above average is pathetic?
Sim_antix 12-08-06, 04:59 PM	By definition tens are the average that you will roll for scores but that by no means makes it the average for human abilities. For instance I am strong but not overly so, at best I am slightly above average strength for my size but I easily clear the requirements for having a 14 Str.
OravennasBrother 12-08-06, 05:08 PM	By definition tens are the average that you will roll for scores but that by no means makes it the average for human abilities. Unless one were to look in the PHB in the section on ability scores. If one did one might note that for each of the six ablities there is an chart showing race/creature and Average core. On each Chart Human is listed with 10-11 for their average attribute. I realize that reading complex charts is an acquired skill, but it is not that difficult to master. Once we realize that 10 IS IN FACT defined as average for humans on the D&D attribute scale, we can dispense with disingenuous nonsense and realize that a character with 10's across the board is, for lack of a better term, just Average. And a 15 point buy can yield a character with 10's across the board and points (3 to be exact) to spare.
Always-Late 12-08-06, 06:53 PM	Half of the population is below average. (Lets use the median for now.) Half of the population is not retarded.
Lethanic 12-08-06, 09:25 PM	By definition tens are the average that you will roll for scores but that by no means makes it the average for human abilities. For instance I am strong but not overly so, at best I am slightly above average strength for my size but I easily clear the requirements for having a 14 Str. By definition as in "These are the stats an average person has" all tens is average stats. Period. YOu might not like it, it might not fit your justification for wanting a charachter with mostly higher than fourteen scores, but there it is.
Sim_antix 12-08-06, 09:42 PM	I am a DM not a player I could care less about what characters I get to play, I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has done the math on Str conversions and IQ conversions and figured out that 10s are rather low...
Lethanic 12-08-06, 09:48 PM	I am a DM not a player I could care less about what characters I get to play, I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has done the math on Str conversions and IQ conversions and figured out that 10s are rather low... JUst out of curiosity, how do you convert the abstract intelligence score with no concrete "Thing" to grade to IQ which is also not concrete and the other four scores which are not in any way concrete to somethign concrete and conclude that tens are not average? The only one you could CONCEVABLY do that on is Strength. Other than that, how do you convert? Any conversion yo do is going to be absurdly arbitrary, on anything but strength - unless you can tell me a real persons skill points, bonus spells, AC modifiers, hit point modifiers, saves, charisma bonuses. . . .and seperate those things from skills that person might have. .which could even theoretically influence strength - for example, a lower strength with a higher skill in, say, weightlifting. .might be able to life an amount greater than a strength score would indicate.
Solaris 12-08-06, 10:47 PM	JUst out of curiosity, how do you convert the abstract intelligence score with no concrete "Thing" to grade to IQ which is also not concrete With statistics and a couple of assumptions. 1) Assume that Int scores are distributed in the general human population as 3d6, i.e., with mean 10.5 and standard deviation 2.95. 2) Assume that Int and IQ are equivalent. 3) Observe that if a given Int score is (Int - 10.5) / 2.95 standard deviations from the mean Int, then the IQ which is that many standard deviations from the mean IQ is 100 + sigma * (Int - 10.5) / 2.95, where sigma is the standard deviation of the particular IQ scale to which you're converting. Any conversion yo do is going to be absurdly arbitrary This method isn't so arbitrary. It does rely on a couple of assumptions, but they are pretty reasonable ones. We need to know the mean and standard deviation of Int: the mean is given explicitly as 10-11, or 10.5; this is also the mean of 3d6, the method traditionally used for generating normal humans in D&D (the 4d6 method is just a way of selecting special characters from a population which is still assumed to be distributed as 3d6). So using the statistical properties of 3d6 would seem to be reasonable. It's also reasonable, at least for the sake of fun, to assume that IQ and Int are equivalent -- if they weren't, we wouldn't even be asking the question of how to convert in the first place. You also need to know the mean and standard deviation of the IQ test you're converting to or from. IQ typically has a mean of 100, but different tests have different standard deviations, so that a 140 on one might be equal to 172 on another. So you can't convert an IQ to Int unless you happen to know which test you took. But if you agree with the assumptions, and you have all the information you need, the method gives good results. If your IQ is higher than those of X percent of the real-world population, then your corresponding Int will be higher than exactly X percent of the D&D population, and vice versa. This is an essential property of a conversion (and one which multiplying or dividing by 10, an absurdly arbitrary method, doesn't have).
Always-Late 12-08-06, 11:27 PM	I am a DM not a player I could care less about what characters I get to play, I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has done the math on Str conversions and IQ conversions and figured out that 10s are rather low...But 10's are average. The book says so. Thus, average is rather low. I suppose I can buy that.
FeceMan 12-09-06, 12:42 AM	I believe that using a 15 point buy build system is a...poor decision, but, if that's what the players want... Incidentally, I was considering a 22-ish point buy system in which characters got +1 to their stats every two levels instead of every four...any comments on this (rather than open up a new thread)?
Vaelan 12-09-06, 01:36 AM	Low point-buys favor SAD characters while making MAD characters practically worthless. In theory, some crazy high point-buy would favor MAD characters. If you're going to use a nonstandard point-buy, you should probably use one that seems relatively balanced between MAD and SAD characters.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 08:10 AM	With statistics and a couple of assumptions. 1) Assume that Int scores are distributed in the general human population as 3d6, i.e., with mean 10.5 and standard deviation 2.95. 2) Assume that Int and IQ are equivalent. 3) Observe that if a given Int score is (Int - 10.5) / 2.95 standard deviations from the mean Int, then the IQ which is that many standard deviations from the mean IQ is 100 + sigma * (Int - 10.5) / 2.95, where sigma is the standard deviation of the particular IQ scale to which you're converting. This method isn't so arbitrary. It does rely on a couple of assumptions, but they are pretty reasonable ones. We need to know the mean and standard deviation of Int: the mean is given explicitly as 10-11, or 10.5; this is also the mean of 3d6, the method traditionally used for generating normal humans in D&D (the 4d6 method is just a way of selecting special characters from a population which is still assumed to be distributed as 3d6). So using the statistical properties of 3d6 would seem to be reasonable. It's also reasonable, at least for the sake of fun, to assume that IQ and Int are equivalent -- if they weren't, we wouldn't even be asking the question of how to convert in the first place. You also need to know the mean and standard deviation of the IQ test you're converting to or from. IQ typically has a mean of 100, but different tests have different standard deviations, so that a 140 on one might be equal to 172 on another. So you can't convert an IQ to Int unless you happen to know which test you took. But if you agree with the assumptions, and you have all the information you need, the method gives good results. If your IQ is higher than those of X percent of the real-world population, then your corresponding Int will be higher than exactly X percent of the D&D population, and vice versa. This is an essential property of a conversion (and one which multiplying or dividing by 10, an absurdly arbitrary method, doesn't have). THat is assuming that IQ has any sgnificant meaning except as what its creator originally intended it as - only a scale to measure _Deficiency_ not _Efficiency_. IQ isn't rightly a measure of a quantifiable 'thing'. SO using it as a compariuson isn also not really a good method. .. aaaaaand. . .you also failed to mention the impact of skills, and the fact that the things we might think of as IQ are probab;ly at least partially diveded between three stats - to wit - charisma, Wisdom and INtelligence. YOu mention assumptions, but they aren't reasonable ones. YOu yourself were mentioning "Different IQ tests" - which have different deviations. You also, at least in 3.5, fail to mention that INtelligence can be RAISED which implies it DOESN'T scale directly to IQ - unless you think you can 'learn' IQ - in which case IC is not an innate 'thing' but a skill. Also, a ten is assumed as the average STARTING position for a person or class - of first level. Since not the entire population is of firs level, naturally the statistical mean WILL go a bit above ten _When including the higher level portion of the population> A very small proportiion of the population with higher class levels has a higher stat set which wil, on average, raise the average slightly - however it does not raise the average of the average 'first level common joe' on the planet. 10 is not average for an adventurer of a higher level npc class. For those not belonging to those professions. .it is.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 08:11 AM	Low point-buys favor SAD characters while making MAD characters practically worthless. In theory, some crazy high point-buy would favor MAD characters. If you're going to use a nonstandard point-buy, you should probably use one that seems relatively balanced between MAD and SAD characters. And in my exp[erience the whole "SAD" vs "MAD" Imbalance never seems to manifest itself. UNless you SOLELY concentrate on combat effectiveness as the measure of a character.
Solaris 12-09-06, 02:07 PM	IQ isn't rightly a measure of a quantifiable 'thing'.It's a measure of how well you perform on IQ tests, relative to the rest of the population. That skill tends to correlate rather strongly with Intelligence. aaaaaand. . .you also failed to mention the impact of skills, and the fact that the things we might think of as IQ are probab;ly at least partially diveded between three stats - to wit - charisma, Wisdom and INtelligence.You'll note I made explicit the assumption that Intelligence and IQ are the same. People ask "how do I convert Int to IQ", not "How do I convert Int, Wis, Cha, and skills to IQ." It's all in fun, right? But still, if you want that, then use (a * Int + b * Wis + c * Cha) / (a + b + c), where a, b, c are the weights you wish to assign to the contribution to IQ of Int, Wis, and Cha, respectively. I wouldn't bother with skills, though. Good IQ tests (unlike any you find on the internet) are constructed so as to minimize the impact of education. YOu mention assumptions, but they aren't reasonable ones. YOu yourself were mentioning "Different IQ tests" - which have different deviations.How is that unreasonable? The method accounts for those differences -- that's a major point of this method. Multiplying by 10, for example, just converts Int to some number with more or less the same range as many IQ scales, and then calls that number IQ. The method I present accurately converts the statistical distriubution of 3d6 into any given IQ scale. You also, at least in 3.5, fail to mention that INtelligence can be RAISED which implies it DOESN'T scale directly to IQ - unless you think you can 'learn' IQ - in which case IC is not an innate 'thing' but a skill.IQ can change too. Simpler not to worry about it. Also, a ten is assumed as the average STARTING position for a person or class - of first level. Since not the entire population is of firs level, naturally the statistical mean WILL go a bit above ten _When including the higher level portion of the population> A very small proportiion of the population with higher class levels has a higher stat set which wil, on average, raise the average slightly - however it does not raise the average of the average 'first level common joe' on the planet. 10 is not average for an adventurer of a higher level npc class. For those not belonging to those professions. .it is. 10.5 is the assumed average for humans. All humans. The set of all humans contains subsets like "adventurers" or "morons" which will have different averages, but those different averages contribute to the general human average of 10.5. That argument is like saying "100 is only the average IQ for some people -- others, like university professors, have higher ones which will raise the average". But that's not true. Those high IQs factor into the general population average. Anyway, it's all in fun. We have to make some simplifications and assumptions in order for the question to be answerable. These are assumptions that most people are willing to make for the sake of fun. Obviously, if you don't think those assumptions are reasonable, then you won't be converting Int to IQ by this method (or, probably, any method). And that's fine. People have been wondering "what's my character's IQ" or "what would my Int be" for as long as D&D's been around. This method is for people who perhaps are used to multiplying by 10, but would be interested in something with a better logical basis. If the only leap they have to make in order to get a working result is to assume that Int and IQ are equivalent, that's good enough for most -- they were doing it implicitly anyway.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 05:49 PM	It's a measure of how well you perform on IQ tests, relative to the rest of the population. That skill tends to correlate rather strongly with Intelligence. You'll note I made explicit the assumption that Intelligence and IQ are the same. People ask "how do I convert Int to IQ", not "How do I convert Int, Wis, Cha, and skills to IQ." It's all in fun, right? But still, if you want that, then use (a * Int + b * Wis + c * Cha) / (a + b + c), where a, b, c are the weights you wish to assign to the contribution to IQ of Int, Wis, and Cha, respectively. I wouldn't bother with skills, though. Good IQ tests (unlike any you find on the internet) are constructed so as to minimize the impact of education. How is that unreasonable? The method accounts for those differences -- that's a major point of this method. Multiplying by 10, for example, just converts Int to some number with more or less the same range as many IQ scales, and then calls that number IQ. The method I present accurately converts the statistical distriubution of 3d6 into any given IQ scale. IQ can change too. Simpler not to worry about it. 10.5 is the assumed average for humans. All humans. The set of all humans contains subsets like "adventurers" or "morons" which will have different averages, but those different averages contribute to the general human average of 10.5. That argument is like saying "100 is only the average IQ for some people -- others, like university professors, have higher ones which will raise the average". But that's not true. Those high IQs factor into the general population average. Anyway, it's all in fun. We have to make some simplifications and assumptions in order for the question to be answerable. These are assumptions that most people are willing to make for the sake of fun. Obviously, if you don't think those assumptions are reasonable, then you won't be converting Int to IQ by this method (or, probably, any method). And that's fine. People have been wondering "what's my character's IQ" or "what would my Int be" for as long as D&D's been around. This method is for people who perhaps are used to multiplying by 10, but would be interested in something with a better logical basis. If the only leap they have to make in order to get a working result is to assume that Int and IQ are equivalent, that's good enough for most -- they were doing it implicitly anyway. 10.5, as such, is given as the average for a 'human' as in a 'first level warrior, one level human' - in the same way it is given for a first level warrior humanoid. . .
Solaris 12-09-06, 06:01 PM	10.5, as such, is given as the average for a 'human' as in a 'first level warrior, one level human' - in the same way it is given for a first level warrior humanoid. . . 10.5 is the human average, and always has been. As far as the current edition is concerned, the Player's Handbook says: "The description of each ability includes a list of races and creatures along with their average scores in that ability... These scores are for an average, young adult creature of the indicated race or kind... An adventurer ... probably has better scores ... and player characters are above average overall." It then goes on to show 10-11 as the average for "human". Just like how the average human IQ is 100, but a college professor probably has a better score... Anyway, you asked how it's done. This is how it's done. If you don't like the way it's done, or if your campaign world has different human averages from everyone else's or you have different assumptions, then either don't do it, or do it differently. *shrug*.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:39 PM	10.5 is the human average, and always has been. As far as the current edition is concerned, the Player's Handbook says: "The description of each ability includes a list of races and creatures along with their average scores in that ability... These scores are for an average, young adult creature of the indicated race or kind... An adventurer ... probably has better scores ... and player characters are above average overall." It then goes on to show 10-11 as the average for "human". Just like how the average human IQ is 100, but a college professor probably has a better score... Anyway, you asked how it's done. This is how it's done. If you don't like the way it's done, or if your campaign world has different human averages from everyone else's or you have different assumptions, then either don't do it, or do it differently. *shrug*. These scores are for an average, young adult creature of the indicated race or kind. NOt for the entire population, note. REgardless, 10 _is_ average by definition, whatever you may not like about it.
Solaris 12-09-06, 06:43 PM	These scores are for an average, young adult creature of the indicated race or kind. NOt for the entire population, note.Well, given that the entire population used to be modelled by 3d6, back when the ability score system was invented, I think I'll just go ahead and assume that that's what's meant here, and assume 10.5 is the human average. Especially since that's supported by "10-11" -- Note that 10.5 is in the middle of that. REgardless, 10 _is_ average by definition, whatever you may not like about it. Which definition? If 10 is the average human Int in your campaign, then please feel free to substitute "10" for "10.5" in the formula I gave.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:45 PM	Well, given that the entire population used to be modelled by 3d6, back when the ability score system was invented, I think I'll just go ahead and assume that that's what's meant here, and assume 10.5. Especially since that's supported by "10-11" -- Note that 10.5 is in the middle of that. Which definition? Low average, actually, since you can't have a half point stat but. . .WHichever. Cool. No skin.
Solaris 12-09-06, 06:52 PM	Low average, actually, since you can't have a half point stat but. . .WHichever. Cool. No skin. Ah, it's a common misunderstanding. The mean doesn't have to be represented as a value. For example, if I have three oranges, and you have two oranges, then the average number of oranges we've got is 2.5 -- even though we've only got whole numbers of oranges. So the mean ability score can be fractional, even if the scores themselves aren't. The mean for 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean for the best 3 of 4d6 is 12.24, etc. It's a mathematical "expectation", and is the appropriate value to use for conversions of this kind. In the end, after the conversion, you'd just round off any fractions. Hope that helps.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:58 PM	Ah, it's a common misunderstanding. The mean doesn't have to be represented as a value. For example, if I have three oranges, and you have two oranges, then the average number of oranges we've got is 2.5 -- even though we've only got whole numbers of oranges. So the mean ability score can be fractional, even if the scores themselves aren't. The mean for 3d6 is 10.5, and the mean for the best 3 of 4d6 is 12.24, etc. It's a mathematical "expectation", and is the appropriate value to use for conversions of this kind. In the end, after the conversion, you'd just round off any fractions. Hope that helps. Actually, that also depends on which definition of "Average" you use. Median or Mode could be, in fact, whole numbers . .although that itself is a bit of nitpicking. Anywho.
Solaris 12-09-06, 07:01 PM	Actually, that also depends on which definition of "Average" you use. Median or Mode could be, in fact, whole numbers Yep, but if you're converting between two normal distributions, you use the mean. Sorry if I confused things by saying "average", but the arithmetic average and the mean are the same here.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 07:03 PM	Yep, but if you're converting between two normal distributions, you use the mean. Sorry if I confused things by saying "average", but the arithmetic average and the mean are the same here. Not a statistician, so there I won't argue with you.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 12-09-06, 07:18 PM	Personally, I think 30-point buy is good, because the players are supposed to be exemplary members of their race if they're going on crazy adventures. However, I think a lower point buy could work if you had the players be just your average Joe Dirtfarmer-types who get pulled into a conflict bigger than they intended. So, to summarize, the way I see it, 15-point buy is permissible under certain circumstances, but shouldn't be used as a policy. (It's well past the point where it'll 'challenge' the players. Read: There's a big difference between 'challenge' and 'gimp.')
Vaelan 12-09-06, 08:44 PM	And in my exp[erience the whole "SAD" vs "MAD" Imbalance never seems to manifest itself. UNless you SOLELY concentrate on combat effectiveness as the measure of a character. Seeing as how combat effectiveness is a significant part of the game and ability scores affect it much more than they affect any other aspect of the game, I don't see the problem with your statement beyond the implication that you're ignoring the imbalance. Also, your statement implies that MAD characters are more effective outside of combat than non-MAD characters, which is patently untrue. Commonly cited MAD classes? Paladin and Monk. Not a whole lot of out-of-combat utility there. Neither of them have terribly significant class features that don't relate to combat and their skill lists aren't that great either. They beat out the Fighter, but that's about it. Other classes, such as the Wizard and Rogue, which do not exhibit MAD, have much greater out-of-combat utility.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 09:22 PM	Seeing as how combat effectiveness is a significant part of the game and ability scores affect it much more than they affect any other aspect of the game, I don't see the problem with your statement beyond the implication that you're ignoring the imbalance. Also, your statement implies that MAD characters are more effective outside of combat than non-MAD characters, which is patently untrue. Commonly cited MAD classes? Paladin and Monk. Not a whole lot of out-of-combat utility there. Neither of them have terribly significant class features that don't relate to combat and their skill lists aren't that great either. They beat out the Fighter, but that's about it. Other classes, such as the Wizard and Rogue, which do not exhibit MAD, have much greater out-of-combat utility. I didn't proclaim that it doesn't exist. I said that it has never been a problem in any of my campaigns. Admittedly, I have had few monks, but I have had an unusual number of Paladins.
Mr. VanderMeer 12-10-06, 01:01 PM	A person with all tens is average all over. Or bland. In real life everybody is good at something. However stats are such narrow defined translations of real life abilities that they do not allow for 'realness'. A character with all average scores would be so bland that he'll stand out because of that.
Karak_Nechot 12-10-06, 01:07 PM	15 point buy = Worst. Campaign. Ever. 22 is about the lowest you could reasonably go, and even then, you're severely gimping a lot of classes.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 12-10-06, 06:41 PM	I think that we need some more clarity in language, as does whatever source says 10 is average. "A human adult who is average at any given ability has a 10 for that ability score." Versus, "The average human adult has all 10s." Neither of those has been explicitly stated in any book, though I think the first one should be used.
Solaris 12-10-06, 07:09 PM	"A human adult who is average at any given ability has a 10 for that ability score." Versus, "The average human adult has all 10s." Neither of those has been explicitly stated in any book, though I think the first one should be used. Goes without saying, really. In the real world, the average IQ is 100, but not everyone has an IQ of 100; there's an average height, but not everyone is that height; etc. In D&D, the average human ability score is 10-11, but there are plenty of examples of humans having other scores. A purely average human adult would have all 10s and 11s, but most people aren't exactly average.
OravennasBrother 12-11-06, 01:51 AM	I think that we need some more clarity in language, as does whatever source says 10 is average. Given that 10-11 is listed as average range for an attribute, then we might REASONABLY define an average person as one with attibutes which sum to 60 to 66 points and with most (say all but 1) of them falling between 9 and 12. This allow "normal" people with on excellent attribute (13) or a poor attribute (8) if they still fall into an average range on the whole. Unsurprisingly, these average people correspond to a point buy of between 12 and 18 points.
Zumarai 12-11-06, 05:16 AM	15 point buy = Worst. Campaign. Ever. Okay, Comic–Book–Guy. Not true...it's just different. As long as the DM is fully knowledgeable about the PC's abilities etc, he/she can craft a perfectly challenging campaign. I'm currently DMing a Planescape campaign where the players ended up with a 67-point buy (don't ask), and it's going swimmingly. As a DM you should be able to provide good, meaty challenges to characters of any type/build etc. If you know what you're doing, you can run a great, challenging campaign for a 10-point buy party, or a 100-point buy party. ...Hey, a 10-point buy party.
vagabonvoid 12-11-06, 08:24 AM	will somebody name some bad guys the pcs could handle on a 15 point buy game? I tried a commoner game once before and the pcs died after getting in a bar brawl (barstool to the head, bottle to the face, etc...) with another commoner also bought with 15 points...
OravennasBrother 12-11-06, 09:46 AM	will somebody name some bad guys the pcs could handle on a 15 point buy game? I tried a commoner game once before and the pcs died. Animals - because animals don't fight to the death unless cornered, and humans are not their typical prey. Sure Boars and Bears can get enraged and rip people to shreds, but wolves only atack men to get at sheep or if they are starving. If the DM/players make an effort to read about animal behaviour then they can determine th tactics which will keep even a low power party safe. Finally a Barroom brawl in which people die should be VERY rare as the feudal lords object to their peasants dying - usually with a rope noose for the culprit. Even a fistfight can see painful economic sanctions againt the offending party if a lord loses labor from one of his serfs.
Zumarai 12-11-06, 09:56 AM	Finally a Barroom brawl in which people die should be VERY rare Yeah, did all of these alcoholics just happen to have Improved Unarmed Strike? …Maybe it was a Wuxia campaign.
vagabonvoid 12-11-06, 08:16 PM	barstools, bottles, and a grappler who bashed one of the PC's heads against a statue a few times.
nightwing 12-11-06, 10:33 PM	In hopes of confusing the issue even more: An average person (that is, rolled via strict 3d6) is likely to have the following scores: score 1: 10 or 11 (50/50) score 2: 9, 10, 11, or 12 (~25/25/25/25) score 3: 9 or 12 (~50/50) score 4: 7,8,13, or 14 (~20/30/30/20) score 5: 7,8,13, or 14 (~20/30/30/20) score 6: 3-6 or 15-18 (2.5/7.5/15/25/25/15/7.5/2.5) If we call 9-12 average (because there is approximately the same chance to roll each, and these account for just under half of all possibilities) then the average person will have 3 average scores. If we call 7, 8, 13, and 14 unusual (because they comprise exactly 1/3 of the total possiblities) then the average person will likely have 2 abnormal ability scores. If we call 3-6 and 15-18 extraordinary (either extraordinarily bad or extraordinalrily good) then the average person is likely to have 1 extraordinary ability score. So, in summary, the average person (statistically speaking) looks like: score 1: average score 2: average score 3: average score 4: unusual score 5: unusual score 6: extraordinary So, it is statistically improbable that an average person will have 10 or 11 in all ability scores. In fact, 1/2 of an average person's scores are outside the average.
Solaris 12-11-06, 11:34 PM	You are correct in saying that half of 3d6 scores will be in the range 9-12, a third will be in the ranges 7-8 or 13-14, and a sixth will be in the ranges 3-6 or 15-18. But the probability of a randomly selected set of six scores having that particular distribution, with 3 scores in the first range, 2 in the second, and 1 in the third, is 6!/(3!2!) 1/2^3 1/3^2 1/6 = 5/36, or only about 13.9 percent. The probability of a randomly selected character being purely average, having three 10s and three 11s, is 6!/(3!3!) 1/8^6 = 5/65536, or really really really small.
nightwing 12-12-06, 09:53 AM	Right. But this distribution (3:2:1) is the most likely of all possiblities. I'm just trying to show that every average person is likely to have one extraordinary score. (But it could be extraordinarily good or bad...) I would have to guess that this is not a very good cross section of real life distribution. I don't believe that 1 out of 36 people qualify for an 18 in any score. So, even average D&D people have a much higher occurance of exceptional qualities than real life people. Or, statistically speaking, the bell curve that shows the spread of ability scores is much wider in D&D than in RL.
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 11:44 AM	barstools, bottles, and a grappler who bashed one of the PC's heads against a statue a few times. Which is a clear case of MURDER in the medieval world - the culprit would hang. Hence the culprit should KNOW better than to use such tactics. Naturally this doesn't apply to NPC's as THEY should always have perfect morale. :rolleyes: As for the chance of a given dice distribution - Any distribution which predicts "ranges" of outcomes (as the 3:2:1 distribution above) is generally FAR more likely than a distribution of discrete numbers (11,11,11,10,10,10) the exceptions occur only when the ranges are narrow enough. Finally dice distributions are pretty irrelevant WRT what constitutes human norms. Since he Point Purchase method excludes humans with attributes below 8, then we can reasonably conclude that someone in the design crew thought human PC's with any attribute below 8 were incredibly unlikely. at that point the range of 8 to 13 seems to fairly represent some kind of central range for attributes. Sure you can purchase a given attribute as high as desired, but the increasing cost per point means that most attributes won't go above 14 - even with 32 points it is possible to only have 3 attributes at 15 - the two remaining points can either increase one score to 16 or raise an 8 to 10, leaving the attributes above 14 maximized at 3 in 6. I know that for myself I don't take ANY attributes above 14 unless the point buy is 32. This means REASONABLE representations of average human beings CAN be made on 15 points - some players might decide on attributes of 11,11,11,10,10,10 others might go for 14,14,11,8,8,8 still others prefer 13,10,10,10,10,10. All might be playable for different players. No supermen, but a potential for heroes is still present in all of them.
aotrscommander 12-12-06, 11:58 AM	Given that 10-11 is listed as average range for an attribute, then we might REASONABLY define an average person as one with attibutes which sum to 60 to 66 points and with most (say all but 1) of them falling between 9 and 12. This allow "normal" people with on excellent attribute (13) or a poor attribute (8) if they still fall into an average range on the whole. Unsurprisingly, these average people correspond to a point buy of between 12 and 18 points. I agree. Another point that I have to raise is what is D&D's 'average' anyway? If we take is strictly to be the mean, that's the sum of all stats of all members of the species (say human) and divided by it's members. That's not got a huge amount to do with the generation method (since it will be skewed by higher-level characters (4+), even worse when you start accounting for inherent (or maybe even enchancement) bonuses). However, I'm more inclind to believe it's probably the mode (the most common, in this case the man in the street); subject to standard deviation and all that. Of course, it could the median instead (and thus be the middle range), as all three are colloquially 'average'. Again, though, I find this to be unlikely due to the 'skew' factor of higher-level character.
Solaris 12-12-06, 01:32 PM	Right. But this distribution (3:2:1) is the most likely of all possiblities. That's not true. For example, the probability of (3:3:0) is 5/18, or about 28 percent -- twice as likely. I would have to guess that this is not a very good cross section of real life distribution. I don't believe that 1 out of 36 people qualify for an 18 in any score.Independently of D&D or 3d6, we would find that 1 in 33 sets of six random values is expected to contain at least one value that would have only half a percent likelihood of occurring on its own. Thus, even in the real world, something comparable to the situation with 18s occurs. Looking at it that way, does it seem more reasonable?
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 02:03 PM	This means REASONABLE representations of average human beings CAN be made on 15 points - some players might decide on attributes of 11,11,11,10,10,10 others might go for 14,14,11,8,8,8 still others prefer 13,10,10,10,10,10. All might be playable for different players. No supermen, but a potential for heroes is still present in all of them. Wrong. In every example you have shown there is no score below 8 nor above 14, as has been shown humans can have several high scores or several low ones and to force everyone into one narrow box is not representing anything except the window of scores YOU feel is appropriate.
Solaris 12-12-06, 02:07 PM	Wrong. In every example you have shown there is no score below 8 nor above 14, as has been shown humans can have several high scores or several low ones and to force everyone into one narrow box is not representing anything except the window of scores YOU feel is appropriate. Well, he was talking specifically about non-exceptional humans. Heroism, one assumes, can exist even on that scale.
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 02:32 PM	Wrong. In every example you have shown there is no score below 8 nor above 14, as has been shown humans can have several high scores or several low ones and to force everyone into one narrow box is not representing anything except the window of scores YOU feel is appropriate. We're not about ot have to go around on how average guys need to have two or three 14's to be average are we? I thought that was settled pages ago when it was pointed out that D&D RAW has charts which explcitly state that the average scores for people are 10-11. 14 represents a pretty fair deviation from average, and as for "nothing below 8" - Human characters can't have scores below 8 in ANY point buy total presented in the game - 8 is the lowest starting point allowed under standard point buy, it costs no points. I suppose I would allow a player who told me they were incapable of adequately representing an 8 Intelligence (or Wisdom or Charisma) freely lower their attribute to something they thought was low enough for them to fake being that smart/wise/etc. But strangely (since for 10 to be average there would need to be one player with a 6-7 Wisdom for every player with a 14 Wisdom) I don't see players rating themselves so low. Reminds me of a Franklin quote which goes something like "Common sense is the most fairly distributed property among all mankind. Though everyone agrees there is a shortage, no one feels they have themselves been slighted in their allotment." So as long as we don't require above average attributes across the board, then a 15 point buy will adequately represent the majority of the population.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 02:36 PM	Right but it has never been debated that a character with 15 Point Buy can still be heroic and blah blah blah. What I object to is the fact that Point Buy in and of itself forces everyone to be equal, but a 15 Point buy forces everyone to be equal in their amount of nothingness. The human race is varied greatly from one individual to the next and each one of us has the potential to be greater than we come "out of the box" with a little effort it is not unreasonable to assume that a educated man with decent athletic ability and a strong personality would have 2-5 scores above 13 and maybe even above 15. That being said there are individuals who fall on the other end of the spectrum and have no score above 12, but you just scrap those characters and try again.
Solaris 12-12-06, 02:40 PM	Point-buy is not intended to generate representative members of the population. Point-buy is intended to generate subsets of the population which have particular desirable properties (such as no scores below 8, and values as high as are permitted by the variable number of points given). It's like the best 3 of 4d6 in this regard: It's an alternative method used to generate special subsets of the population.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 02:41 PM	We're not about ot have to go around on how average guys need to have two or three 14's to be average are we? I thought that was settled pages ago when it was pointed out that D&D RAW has charts which explcitly state that the average scores for people are 10-11. 14 represents a pretty fair deviation from average, and as for "nothing below 8" - Human characters can't have scores below 8 in ANY point buy total presented in the game - 8 is the lowest starting point allowed under standard point buy, it costs no points. I suppose I would allow a player who told me they were incapable of adequately representing an 8 Intelligence (or Wisdom or Charisma) freely lower their attribute to something they thought was low enough for them to fake being that smart/wise/etc. But strangely (since for 10 to be average there would need to be one player with a 6-7 Wisdom for every player with a 14 Wisdom) I don't see players rating themselves so low. Reminds me of a Franklin quote which goes something like "Common sense is the most fairly distributed property among all mankind. Though everyone agrees there is a shortage, no one feels they have themselves been slighted in their allotment." So as long as we don't require above average attributes across the board, then a 15 point buy will adequately represent the majority of the population. No it would not since any given person can have 3 or more above average scores which 15 point buy does not allow. Also having the minimum be 8 is no different from allowing for re-rolls if you roll that poorly except that it is still possible to have a score lower than 8 because you rolled high enough on other ones to balance it. What if I dont want to lower my Int or Cha? What if I wanted to lower my Str and Con cause I am a frail elven mage? If I lower them shouldn't I then get more points into my point buy? I mean thats only fair and "balanced" right?
nightwing 12-12-06, 02:50 PM	Well, as I calculated, roughly 1/6 of all ability scores will be extraordinary. So, again, on average, each person is likely to have one extraordinary ability. Now, if we want to restrict down to the number of people who have one extraordinarily GOOD score (15-18), then it's one in 72 individuals. I would say that given the 3:2:1 average joe, we could suppose that if we eliminate the chunk of population that had any below average scores, we could go with a hero's array of: 15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 (equivalent of a 27 point buy, i think?) I think this would represent about 1.5% of the total population, if I did the calculation right. I suppose that's reasonable for those who like their heros to have heroic scores. I'm considering starting my next campaign with all characters taking 8,9,10,11,12,13 as a starting array. Modify for race. Then grant one bonus point per level instead of one every 4. This allows people to start out somewhat like normal people but then grow into heros as they gain experience. But along with that, my campaigns have loads of down time between adventures, typically a year or more. So 20th level wouldn't be achieveable until age 40 or so at the earliest. By the time a person has been an adventurer of epic proportions, they're bound to be pretty old, in my opinion. I've mentioned it in another post, but the idea of 20 year old 20th level characters walking around just screems "FALSE!" to me. Yes, fighters take a hit as they age in some sense, but even in real life, when people get into their 40's, they start thinking about retiring from the soldierly lifestyle and get into management. A 20th level, 45 year-old fighter would usually have a castle, wife, and kids to manage by that time, so they wouldn't be out in the field so much. He'd spend more time training new recruits and elite guards than adventuring. I suppose if some yokel wizard or cleric unleashed a demon, the guy might have to take up the sword and shield again, but otherwise...
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 03:00 PM	No it would not since any given person can have 3 or more above average scores which 15 point buy does not allow. Repreat the Magic words "AVERAGE PEOPLE" three times please. Then note that a 15 point buy could give 12, 12, 12, 9, 9, 9 For a character above average physically (Str, Dex Con) but a bit on the slow side, or above average mentally (Int Wis Cha) but a bit under par physically. In other words a mostly AVERAGE PERSON. Also having the minimum be 8 is no different from allowing for re-rolls if you roll that poorly except that it is still possible to have a score lower than 8 because you rolled high enough on other ones to balance it. The minimum is 8 perhaps because it limits (dare I use the word) Powergamers ability to focus exclusively on "useful" stats. Can' drop Charisma to 3 just to bump Strength (for example) on you Orc Barbarian (handily negating the effect of the -2 penalty as no PC can have attributes lowered below 3 by racial modifiers) What if I dont want to lower my Int or Cha? What if I wanted to lower my Str and Con cause I am a frail elven mage? If I lower them shouldn't I then get more points into my point buy? I mean thats only fair and "balanced" right? I'm unsure how to respond to this; it seems soooo far OT. I'm pretty sure that placing 8 into Strength and Constitution prior to racial modifiers will make an Elf frail enough to die quickly. If someone wanted to lower those attributes even more they Could, but then they might catch a cold and perish before the first game started.
Solaris 12-12-06, 03:05 PM	Well, as I calculated, roughly 1/6 of all ability scores will be extraordinary. So, again, on average, each person is likely to have one extraordinary ability.Not quite. On average, 1 in 2.9 will have exactly one, and 1 in 2.2 will have at least one ability in the range 3-6 + 15-18. Now, if we want to restrict down to the number of people who have one extraordinarily GOOD score (15-18), then it's one in 72 individuals.1 in 4.5 will have exactly one, and 1 in 4 will have at least one. I would say that given the 3:2:1 average joeI question your re-definition of the word "average". An average person would have average scores: three 10s and three 11s. Only a very small fraction of people are average. Others may have scores which have an average equal to the population average, but that includes people with three 18s and three 3s, and they fall outside of your specification. So if you're talking about "common" instead of "average", then as I pointed out, a 3:2:1 character isn't even likely, at 14 percent, and a 3:3:0 character is twice as likely as that. 15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11 (equivalent of a 27 point buy, i think?) I think this would represent about 1.5% of the total population, if I did the calculation right.10.5 percent of the population would have all scores equal to or higher than those.
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 03:25 PM	Not quite. On average, 1 in 2.9 will have exactly one, and 1 in 2.2 will have at least one ability in the range 3-6 + 15-18. All the statistics and the averages derived therefrom are based on rolling six sided dice. Ask instead what you think as you walk down the street and see AVERAGE people. How many are so strong looking that you think "Gee he/she looks really strong." How often do you meet someone and think "Gee he/she is really smart" And if one of those occurs, do you still view them as Average? Exactly. Lots of Average People perform heroic deeds. Some (like most surviving Medal Winners from WWII) do so over an extended preriod of time. Rememebr playing only the highest power levels (32 point buy) cedes the opportunity to play average people with attributes centered around 10.5.
nightwing 12-12-06, 03:35 PM	Solaris: I'm not sure how you're getting your numbers. If you want, I'll email you my spreadsheet and you can see for yourself. There are 6*6*6 total possible dice rolls. That's 216 total possibilities. Roughly 1/6 of those 216 possiblities result in 3-6 or 15-18. So 1 in 6 scores is extraordinary (as I've defined it). Also, each person has 6 scores total, so on average, every person will have one extraordinary ability. It's pretty simple logic. Certainly, some will not have any, and some will have more than one. But we can only talk in statistical averages. So as I said, the average person will not have 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11. He will have: normal, normal, normal, abnormal, abnormal, extraordinary (or 3:2:1) I'll have to see your calculations if you want to convince me otherwise. Edit: Ah! I noticed a mistake I made. If the average person has one extraordinary ability score, and half of those scores are extraordinarily BAD, then only ~1/2 of all people will have a 15-18. Perhaps this is where you get the 1 in 2.2. So my 1 in 72 comment was way off. Sorry.
Solaris 12-12-06, 03:43 PM	All the statistics and the averages derived therefrom are based on rolling six sided dice....which is just a model for how real populations work -- in bell curves. We can talk about percentiles here as well as in the real world, and that's what it comes down to -- where you place relative to the rest of your population. Ask instead what you think as you walk down the street and see AVERAGE people.What do you people mean by "average people"? Just "people"? People whose traits are all equal to the population average? People whose advantages are exactly balanced by their disadvantages? People who are within some number of standard deviations from the mean? You're all throwing this word around, and using it completely differently from each other. How many are so strong looking that you think "Gee he/she looks really strong." How often do you meet someone and think "Gee he/she is really smart" And if one of those occurs, do you still view them as Average? Exactly.Huh? Exactly what? Lots of Average People perform heroic deeds.You should note that not only did I not argue with you on this point, but I supported you on it a few posts ago. So again, huh? Rememebr playing only the highest power levels (32 point buy) cedes the opportunity to play average people with attributes centered around 10.5. I know it well: the average ability score of all possible 15-point characters is 10.44; for 16-point characters it's 10.59; and for 32 points it's 12.52. Why am I supposed to remember it?
Solaris 12-12-06, 04:00 PM	I'll have to see your calculations if you want to convince me otherwise. The probability of obtaining at least S1 and at most S2 outcomes from N trials, where P is the probability of the outcome occurring, is the sum, for i from S1 to S2, of C(N,i) * P^i * (1-P)^(N-i). The probability of getting a 3-6 or 15-18 is 20/216. If we want to get at least one, then S1 is 1 and S2 is 6. N is obviously 6. So you want the sum, for i from 1 to 6, of C(6,i) * (20/216)^i * (196/216)^(6-i).
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 04:01 PM	...which is just a model for how real populations work -- in bell curves. We can talk about percentiles here as well as in the real world, and that's what it comes down to -- where you place relative to the rest of your population. And you hadle the statistics admirably. What I was attmpting to say is that the bell curve of 3 six sided dice need not be the same as for the population - particularly when measuring Strength by virtue of lifting ability and comparing with the averages ni the D&D game. Huh? Exactly what? Sorry, but the point is that average people are lost in the crowd; once you start viewing someone as exceptional they are no longer part of the crowd. You should note that not only did I not argue with you on this point, but I supported you on it a few posts ago. I was responding to the statement another poster made to the effect that "a 15 Point buy forces everyone to be equal in their amount of nothingness." A 15 point but has everyone equal in their ability to be above average in one field (a 13) and still average in all other (10's) or even above average (12) in several areas, while below average in several. Certainly a FAR cry from nothingness.
Solaris 12-12-06, 04:08 PM	What I was attmpting to say is that the bell curve of 3 six sided dice need not be the same as for the population Ah, okay, true. It's generally been assumed to be the case for as long as D&D's been around, but people would certainly be free to define it otherwise in their campaign settings if they chose.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 04:12 PM	And yet still not even close to my own abilities which seem to be so impressive to some and yet I find them to be rather average. Even with taking my rather high Int into account I still find them average because I know alot of people that are not only intelligent (exactly how intelligent I would have no way of knowing but I am intelligent and I was impressed so...) but they are stronger or faster or more charasmatic than me. Everyone (well most everyone that I know anyways) finds the things that they do well and they work on those abilities and although a 15 point buy can create a very very average person that is in no way an indication of what you can expect to find if you pulled 100 people out of the crowd. You would find a wide range of scores and not a small window of "average" abilites.
Solaris 12-12-06, 04:23 PM	So as I said, the average person will not have 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11. He will have: normal, normal, normal, abnormal, abnormal, extraordinary (or 3:2:1)Only if you re-define "average" to suit.
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 04:27 PM	Ah, okay, true. It's generally been assumed to be the case for as long as D&D's been around, but people would certainly be free to define it otherwise in their campaign settings if they chose. It's possibly a holdover from Earlier editions where 17-18 Int was DEFINED as Genius Level Intellect, yet 1 in 54 rolls of 3d6 will total 17 or 18, while actual genius level intellect is much rarer. I wasn't trying to debate semantics, just remind that playing characters with INITIAL attributes of 8-13 is NOT some horrid abberration, so pathetic it should have been drowned at birth, but a normal average person. Although the medieval/D&D world does provide ample opportunities to increase Strength (Through Hard Work) few have the resources to try and "train up" their other attributes. Really if it were as simple as just, say playing darts to build dexterity, the world would be overrun with olympic caliber gymnasts.
Solaris 12-12-06, 04:31 PM	It's possibly a holdover from Earlier editions where 17-18 Int was DEFINED as Genius Level Intellect, yet 1 in 54 rolls of 3d6 will total 17 or 18, while actual genius level intellect is much rarer.Well, an 18 Int converts statistically to a 140 IQ (with standard deviation 15), and that's a "genius"-level score on that IQ scale. The definitions from the 1st Edition Monster Manual match up pretty well. INITIAL attributes of 8-13 is NOT some horrid abberration, so pathetic it should have been drowned at birth, but a normal average person. Indeed. 68% of normally distributed scores will lie within one standard deviation of the mean. For 3d6, that's the range 8-13. However, almost everyone (10 out of 11 people) would have at least one score outside that range.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 04:38 PM	Not quite. Everyone has a max potential so to speak in any given attribute and training is just honing your natural abilities. Take me for example. I never lifted weights until I was 21 and was terribly weak I couldnt even bench 100 lbs. Now that I have honed my strength I can bench 200 lbs. When I first started running I would be winded in 5 minutes, after honing my constitution I can run 1 mile without batting an eye. If someone were to stretch everyday and train they could improve their dexterity but olympic caliber gymnists have been doing it everyday since they were 3 so you will never catch up to them. Even so with training a person can easily clear 12s in every single one of their physical scores and possibly charisma as well. Intelligence and wisdom are a bit more difficult to improve but even so thats 4 out of 6 scores right there.
OravennasBrother 12-12-06, 05:06 PM	Well, an 18 Int converts statistically to a 140 IQ (with standard deviation 15), and that's a "genius"-level score on that IQ scale. The definitions from the 1st Edition Monster Manual match up pretty well. I'm not able to accept that statement. Sure IQ of 140 puts one in the upper 2% (roughly equal to a 17 or 18 in probability) but 1st edition and 2nd AD&D both put 19 as ABOVE The human limit (barring Magical effects). Even aging could not (in those editions) raise Int above 18. However people exist with IQ far in excess of 140. I believe that someone on this very thread posted their IQ and claimed is was 160 or so. Also, at that rate we would have thousands of absolute geniuses graduating from High School every year. Where do they all go? Strangely I've seen genius defined a little higher than top 2%. Sure, it is possible for some to play with word definitions and get bizarre nonsense, but I don't believe that is your intent. Nor is it mine. And as long as we take definitinos of Average which don't force characters to have one or more attributes above 15, then we can build average characters on 15 points. There should be a reason that 22, 28 and 32 point buys are listed as other options in the DMG, each with their own power level. That reason being that those characters which have better attributes than can be managed by a 15 point purchase can be built with higher points. I also realise there is no point total which could build the 1 in ~100,000,000,000,000 individual with all 18's. Imagine that. Again Characters built on 15 points are not horribly lame, they are just Average.
Solaris 12-12-06, 05:18 PM	I'm not able to accept that statement. Sure IQ of 140 puts one in the upper 2% (roughly equal to a 17 or 18 in probability) An 18 is in the 99.5th percentile. Top half-percent. A 139 on the Weschler scale is the same. However people exist with IQ far in excess of 140. I believe that someone on this very thread posted their IQ and claimed is was 160 or so. Different scale. On the Weschler scale, with standard deviation 15, a 140 is genius. That's equivalent to perhaps a 170 on the IQ scale where that 160 is probably from. An isolated IQ score is meaningless without knowledge of its standard deviation. I stand by my assertions.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 05:54 PM	Sure, it is possible for some to play with word definitions and get bizarre nonsense, but I don't believe that is your intent. Nor is it mine. And as long as we take definitinos of Average which don't force characters to have one or more attributes above 15, then we can build average characters on 15 points. There should be a reason that 22, 28 and 32 point buys are listed as other options in the DMG, each with their own power level. That reason being that those characters which have better attributes than can be managed by a 15 point purchase can be built with higher points. I also realise there is no point total which could build the 1 in ~100,000,000,000,000 individual with all 18's. Imagine that. Again Characters built on 15 points are not horribly lame, they are just Average. Its not about "forcing" them to have one or more attribute(s) above 15 its about it being a very real likelyhood that they have one or more above 15...
Solaris 12-12-06, 07:09 PM	Assuming a 3d6 distribution, 10% of characters will have all six scores in the range 8-13, 29% will be in 7-14, 56% will be in 6-15, 80% will be in 5-16, and 95% will be in 4-17. So if we wanted to refer to a "typical" or "common" person (and stop abusing the word "average") we could note that a majority of people have all of their scores in the range 6-15. Hope that helps.
Sim_antix 12-12-06, 07:26 PM	Assuming a 3d6 distribution, 10% of characters will have all six scores in the range 8-13, 29% will be in 7-14, 56% will be in 6-15, 80% will be in 5-16, and 95% will be in 4-17. So if we wanted to refer to a "typical" or "common" person (and stop abusing the word "average") we could note that a majority of people have all of their scores in the range 6-15. Hope that helps. Helps me. Thats pretty much what I have been saying too.
Solaris 12-12-06, 07:45 PM	Note also that if we insist on a lower limit of 8, we can't even get a majority when we raise the upper limit to 18 -- only 35% will have all scores in the range 8-18. Point buy is therefore not capable of generating a majority of the 3d6 population. Hence, Point-buy is not intended to generate representative members of the population. Point-buy is intended to generate subsets of the population which have particular desirable properties (such as no scores below 8, and values as high as are permitted by the variable number of points given). It's like the best 3 of 4d6 in this regard: It's an alternative method used to generate special subsets of the population.
Solaris 12-13-06, 01:16 PM	a 15 point buy, while not capable of representing "a majority of the vagaries of the dice rolls" IS a much more reasonable representation of Average than a 22 or 25 point buy.That's true. The average score for 15 points (taken over all possible 15-point characters) is 10.44, which is very close to the population average (assuming, as ever, a 3d6 population). For 22 points it's 11.38, and for 25 points it's 11.73 -- these latter two are skewing the character's stats upward away from the average. However, while it does generate average scores, it won't generate typical or common characters. But that's what I think most of you should be meaning -- someone you'd be likely to pick off the street at random.
OravennasBrother 12-13-06, 03:10 PM	However, while it does generate average scores, it won't generate typical or common characters. But that's what I think most of you should be meaning -- someone you'd be likely to pick off the street at random. Given the way that you seem to have defined typical there exists no point buy which can generate such "random characters" Yet the 15 point buy is closer than the others (22, 25, 28, or 32) for doing so. It is Obviously constrained to generating only those individuals which actually equal an exact 15 point buy; that of itself is a small percentage of possible characters created from rolling the dice. However that does not change the limitation that EITHER the ranges of attributes have a huge variety at their extremes (an 18 Int covering the equivalent of all IQ's from oh 140 to 210), or the probability distribution from the dice is off. Look again at Strength; the one attribute with well defined real world equivalencies - though even there the person who can lift 280 pounds over their head is between a 17 and 18 it is discrete enough to be moderately workable . RAW a 14 Strength can get 350 pounds off the ground. Out of all 3d6 rolls, those which are 14 or above represent ~ 16% of the rolls. IF that distribution applied to human strength distribution then 16% (~1 in 6) of all the Adults you meet between the ages of 16 and 34 Could get that weight off the ground. Further with the aging rates given, 10% of the population between 35 and 52 could manage the same weight. But even in the 16 to 34 group I do not find that 1 in 6 MEN can lift 350 pounds off the ground. Clearly then there is something different between the distribution of dice and actual strengths. Yes you cannot represent all the dice possibilities with 15 points. You cannot represent someone above average across the board with 15 points. But you can build MOST of the people I know and ALL the ones who I consider average (some would even have points left over) Which is the more relevant test of the ability of 15 point buy to generate average people- matching it to dice rolls, or matching it to people?
Solaris 12-13-06, 03:26 PM	However that does not change the limitation that EITHER the ranges of attributes have a huge variety at their extremes (an 18 Int covering the equivalent of all IQ's from oh 140 to 210), or the probability distribution from the dice is off.I don't think anyone has anything approaching a 210 on the scale for which 140 is an equivalent to 18. That's more than 7 standard deviations from the mean. Also, Int scores can go above 18. The IQ/Int conversion works very well (if you understand it). Clearly then there is something different between the distribution of dice and actual strengths.Yeah. I think the rules authors screwed up there and defined strengths in conflict with the tacit assumptions that go with 3d6. Yes you cannot represent all the dice possibilities with 15 points. You cannot represent someone above average across the board with 15 points. But you can build MOST of the people I know and ALL the ones who I consider average (some would even have points left over)That's fair enough -- we're talking about different things, then. You're talking about generating people you know, and I'm talking about generating typical or common characters relative to the game's assumptions about probability. Which is the more relevant test of the ability of 15 point buy to generate average people- matching it to dice rolls, or matching it to people?I would suggest that die rolls are the default standard by which these things are measured, rather than a particular person's experiences.
OravennasBrother 12-13-06, 04:06 PM	I would suggest that die rolls are the default standard by which these things are measured, rather than a particular person's experiences. Use your own experience then. Think of all the people you know. Divide them into two equal groups - those with more charisma and those with less charisma. I bet you reach a point where you're not sure who belongs in which group pretty quick. How could that happen? The answer is that most people have about the same amount of charisma. Call it a 10 in D&D terms. Only a few have notably low charisma (unless all your acquaintances are the stereotypical gaming outcasts) and only a few have notably high charisma. Far less then the numbers rolled on 3d6 which correspond to 3-9 or 12-18 would indicate. Or better use RAW. Under RAW the "Common" person has attributes of 10 to 11 - at least in the 3.0 MM. The entries for Elf, Dwarf, Goblin etc have attributes of 10 or 11 +racial modifiers. In 3.5 the numbers are based on the "non-elite" array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 +Racial modifiers. These represent the "Common" members of those races - not some set of dice roll distribution. Note also that the numbers 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 correspond to a 15 point buy. I would sudggest that RAW is beter than any interpretation of statistics.
Solaris 12-13-06, 04:14 PM	I would sudggest that RAW is beter than any interpretation of statistics.Speaking only for myself, I'd agree except where new RAW disagrees with old game statistics (particularly when it likely comes from new designers not understanding said statistics). But if those playing 3E want to have 10,10,10,11,11,11 be commonly occurring in their populations, I won't argue with them. On the other hand, I can easily accept the 10/11 array and the 8,9,10,11,12,13 array as approximations which are convenient for shortcuts. It just depends on what the goals are -- to model a population, or to come up with a quick solution off the cuff that's "good enough". Sometimes I just get more satisfaction from the extra effort :)
Sim_antix 12-13-06, 05:06 PM	Speaking only for myself, I'd agree except where new RAW disagrees with old game statistics (particularly when it likely comes from new designers not understanding said statistics). But if those playing 3E want to have 10,10,10,11,11,11 be commonly occurring in their populations, I won't argue with them. I will because that is not a typical human by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I can easily accept the 10/11 array and the 8,9,10,11,12,13 array as approximations which are convenient for shortcuts. It just depends on what the goals are -- to model a population, or to come up with a quick solution off the cuff that's "good enough". Sometimes I just get more satisfaction from the extra effort :) Word. Sometimes its better to put in a little effort combined with some logical assumptions to get a more realistic feel to your gaming.
OravennasBrother 12-13-06, 05:32 PM	Speaking only for myself, I'd agree except where new RAW disagrees with old game statistics (particularly when it likely comes from new designers not understanding said statistics). If we go back to the ORIGINAL designers (Gygax and Arneson) then average Human's didn't have any distinguishing attributes beyond HP. Reading between the lines, the movement value for different equipment packets corresponded to carrying capacities of a strength 10. So telling me that the original design intended for every human to have six attributes rolled on 3d6 is not very convincing. I'd say it sounds more like all the faceless average NPC's were all 10's unless they deviated from the norm. The 15 point buy is still better than any other method presented for creating AVERAGE characters in 3.X. If a player insists on more points then they are not satisfied with average.
Sim_antix 12-13-06, 05:47 PM	Wrong. Rolling does much better at producing "average" characters...
Always-Late 12-13-06, 05:51 PM	Wrong. Rolling does much better at producing "average" characters...Characters with average scores? The individual characters is more likely to be an "average" character. However, the spectrum of characters will not represent an accurate depiction of all characters. Think of it this way: Flip eight coins. That's rolling dice. Point buy? Four of them come up heads, and four of them come up tails. The average number of heads for the roll-die method is 4. Same with the number of tails. Thus, the point buy results in the most "average" character - or result. It, however, fails to be an accurate representation of the coin fip.
Solaris 12-13-06, 05:59 PM	Rolling 3d6 is good for simulating what would happen if you were to pick a random person off the street. Rolling the best 3 of 4d6 is good for simulating what would happen if you were to pick a random person out of the local adventurer's guild. Point buys are good for simulating what would happen if you were to pick non-random people out of various different subsets of the population (with the number of points determining just how exceptional those subsets are). Assignment of straight average scores (10s and 11s) is good for when you are happy to assume that the people are in no way remarkable. Assignment of an array like 8,9,10,11,12,13 is good for when you want someone that's still not very remarkable, but has a more realistic sort of spread. Other arrays are to those arrays as point buys are to rolling -- they're placing a desired skew on the outcome. That's a lot of different methods, suitable for a lot of different goals. Use the one that suits your purposes.
Sim_antix 12-13-06, 06:06 PM	Point Buy fails to allow for discrepancies between different people. You can grab 100 people off of the street and will be all but assured that most of them will have different abilities.
Solaris 12-13-06, 06:15 PM	I'd say it sounds more like all the faceless average NPC's were all 10's unless they deviated from the norm.If that was the intent, then the result is a very poor model of a realistic human population -- populations don't look like that. Gygax was clued about probabilities and used bell curves for a reason. The 4d6 method was introduced in AD&D as a method of creating exceptional characters -- better than (one therefore infers) average ones generated by 3d6. Most people, for all of D&D's history, have assumed a 3d6 distribution for the general population. While no edition has explicitly stated that this is the case, it's never been explicitly stated not to be the case, and there's enough circumstantial evidence, and it works well enough, for most people to have assumed it. Obviously, you don't have to assume that if you don't want to. If you want to have typical, common, frequently occurring people be average, then that's your right. But it's not terribly realistic. Most people, for example, don't have an IQ of 100 -- there's a rather large bulge about the average. If you grab people at random off the street, then the majority of them will be in the range 85-115 (for an IQ scale with S.D. 15). I therefore don't like the idea of "common" people being "average" people. But again, if you do, go for it. 3d6 is a better model of "common" people than "average" people. 15 points is a better model of "average" people than "common" people. Let's just not confuse the two terms or purposes.
Solaris 12-13-06, 08:57 PM	For example, the probability of (3:3:0) is 5/18, or about 28 percent -- twice as likely.Oops. 5/54; less likely.
Mecha_Pope 12-14-06, 01:04 AM	The problem is, people in real life rarley comform to an all 10's stat block. The average person is overpowered. It's crazy man. My friends and i all took stat tests, and watched over each other so we wouldn't lie, and none of us are "normal people" We're not optimized, with all our scores all over the place rather than all piled into neat columns for what we need high scores in, but we're still all around a 32 point buy or higher. One person managed a 22 point buy, and that was my 15 year old brother with heart problems and no mucles at all. Real life is so overpowered.
OravennasBrother 12-14-06, 10:47 AM	Let us perform a series of Gedanken experiments. First imagine a system for generating Strength attributes for a game with the following strength scale Strength Lift 1 None 2 Under 10 Pounds 3 10 to 50 Pounds 4 50 to 250 Pounds 5 250 to 750 Pounds 6 Over 750 Pounds To generate people for the associated game you roll 2d3, generating a bell curve from 2 to 6. At first blush it seems quite reasonable - most people can lift between 50 and 250 pounds and the most common score is 4. But while we might find something like 2 in 9 able to lift a maximum of 10 to 50 pounds we would not find that 1 in 9 could lift over 750 pounds. Thus an appeal to "Well a game engine gives a bell curve distribution of abilities" does not mean that the bell curve matches the human population in any save a superficial manner. Second imagine getting a room full of people and asking them to hold their breath as long as they can. What percentage would be able to make 20 minutes or more? Far less than half. How many could hold their breaths for 3 minutes 36 seconds? Far less than 1 in 216. Yet if these people had Constitution scores as predicted by the dice method for D&D they could hold their breath for those lengths of time in those percentages (reference the rules on drowning). Finally imagine getting a group of people together to measure their seated leg stretch (which measures how far past their toes they can reach and is a prime measure of flexibility) The vast majority (over 99%) would fall between 6 inches short of their toes and 2 inches past their toes, and the grouping would NOT (as appears in studies) follow a bell curve. Also Flexibility has no correlation to reflexes, eye-hand coordination or running speed and only a minor correlation to balance. End Gedanken experiments. At some point measurable differences between living people will not make a difference at a game scale. This is particularly true in a game where attributes represent a merging of attributes into just six different categories. A given individuals physical strength might be optimized for striking hard, lifting great weight, performing manual labor, or carrying a load over a distance. If one were to precisely measure the lifting ability of a large population, you could get a ranking system with everyone in a specific percentile category. Some categories (the best 1 in 216) would encompass an enormous range (from the strongest in the population down to whoever just made the cut off point) while other groupings would be a bit narrower. Also there would be the edge cases - there would be less difference between a person at the top end of the second best group in 216 (corresponding to a 17 strength) and the person at the bottom of the top end (best 1 in 216). To be clear consider a population of 216,000,000 people - there will almost certainly be less variation between the lifting ability of the person ranked 1,000,000 and the person ranked 1,000,001 than between the person ranked 50,000 and the person ranked 1,000,000. Perhaps the person ranked 50,000 lifts 553 lbs 7.4 oz, while the person rated 1,000,000 lifts 489 lbs 2.3 oz and the person rated 1,000,001 lifts 489 lbs 1.4 oz. Fitting this population onto the D&D 3 to 18 scale would lead to the erroneous conclusion that there was no measurable difference between the different 18’s and that any 17’s were significantly below any 18’s. We might do something similar with eyesight, calling 20/20 a 10, 20/15 a 12, 20/10 a 14, 20/5 a 16 and anything better than 20/5 an 18. How much of the HUMAN population would be over a 10? But if we ranked people against each other, rating them relative to one another we would get someone with the best eyesight of 216 people. That would not mean that individual would actually have better than 20/5 vision. To many people are caught in the concept that a bell curve means an accurate representation of people. It doesn’t.
vagabonvoid 12-14-06, 12:37 PM	Second imagine getting a room full of people and asking them to hold their breath as long as they can. What percentage would be able to make 20 minutes or more? Far less than half. How many could hold their breaths for 3 minutes 36 seconds? Far less than 1 in 216. Yet if these people had Constitution scores as predicted by the dice method for D&D they could hold their breath for those lengths of time in those percentages (reference the rules on drowning). Rules for drowning are different between the PHB and the DMG. Under the swim skill in PHB, you can hold your breath up to a number of rounds before beggining to drown or suffocate (this number is reduced by any activity). This means a person with a con of 10 can hold their breath 1 minute, and a person with a con of 15 can hold their breath for 1.5 minutes (a round being 6 seconds) In the DMG however it is changed to twice the number of your con score. I personally see this as a typo--a commoner under this system can hold their breath longer than most people on the planet... This is the problem with having too many authors for one set of rules.
OravennasBrother 12-14-06, 01:33 PM	Rules for drowning are different between the PHB and the DMG. Under the swim skill in PHB, you can hold your breath up to a number of rounds before beggining to drown or suffocate (this number is reduced by any activity). This means a person with a con of 10 can hold their breath 1 minute, and a person with a con of 15 can hold their breath for 1.5 minutes (a round being 6 seconds) But a moderately fit swimmer can hold their breath for OVER two minutes. Pearl Divers regularly SWIM underwater for more than three. That's some rather huge Con scores (20 to 30+ at 10 per minute) if Con is rounds of holding your breath while inactive.
thanatos_lich 12-16-06, 02:36 PM	I think we are drifting from the original point of this thread.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 04:28 PM	I think we are drifting from the original point of this thread. Which is how low point buys gimp class selection if you intend on being anywhere near halfway effective.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 04:50 PM	But a moderately fit swimmer can hold their breath for OVER two minutes. Pearl Divers regularly SWIM underwater for more than three. That's some rather huge Con scores (20 to 30+ at 10 per minute) if Con is rounds of holding your breath while inactive. We can pr4esume that Pearl dives have high amounts of SKILL in "Pearl diving" Or SKILL in "Holding breath" Not everything is based off of a pure stat.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 07:03 PM	We can pr4esume that Pearl dives have high amounts of SKILL in "Pearl diving" Or SKILL in "Holding breath" Not everything is based off of a pure stat. Probably a combination of Profession (diver) and Feats Still have to say that I feel a low point buy favors certain classes...
Lethanic 12-16-06, 07:23 PM	At a certain low level, obviously. THe argument would be over what that level IS.
Sim_antix 12-16-06, 08:09 PM	At a certain low level, obviously. THe argument would be over what that level IS. Well I would hazard a guess that 15 is well within that range...
OravennasBrother 12-18-06, 09:20 AM	We can pr4esume that Pearl dives have high amounts of SKILL in "Pearl diving" Or SKILL in "Holding breath" Not everything is based off of a pure stat. RAW in 3.X holding your breath IS pure stat. anyone who cannot create moderately capable human beings on 15 ponits is too predisposed to want high attributes. 15 points can represent a wide range of attributes - jut not all the attributes at high levels. That is the ENTIRE point of using a lower point buy total -If someone wants a 17 Int on their Wizard, they must sacrifice to get it. One could use an analogy to different levels of sports ability to show how rare some of the higher numbers must be (oh right the mythic 'skill' connection) if we wich to distinguish between High School athleetes at one level (~12), college athletes at the next (~14), professional at the next (~16) world class at the next (~18) and legendary at teh top (over 18) with average people around 10 and weak ones (in a given attribute) around 8. Wanting more than 15 ponits is not due to a problem with low pwered games, it is due to an expectation of being given MORE.
Captain_Willard 12-18-06, 09:31 AM	Wanting more than 15 ponits is not due to a problem with low pwered games, it is due to an expectation of being given MORE. Totally, as Zumarai said "People have got to stop approaching this game with the but this goes to eleven syndrome."
Solaris 12-23-06, 08:38 PM	Assuming a 3d6 distribution, 10% of characters will have all six scores in the range 8-13, 29% will be in 7-14, 56% will be in 6-15, 80% will be in 5-16, and 95% will be in 4-17. So if we wanted to refer to a "typical" or "common" person (and stop abusing the word "average") we could note that a majority of people have all of their scores in the range 6-15. Interestingly, in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's guide it was suggested that general, average NPCs be generated with 3d6, considering any 1 to be a 3 and any 6 to be a 4. This gives a range of 6-15 in agreement with the above. However, although scores like 6 and 15 are possible here, they're equivalent in probability to 3 and 18 with regular 3d6; the small variance of this distribution means that the overwhelming majority of scores will be in the range 8-13, and the majority (66%) of characters will have all scores in that range. It looks like 15 points might fairly be said to be able to generate the majority of common folk after all.
Sim_antix 12-23-06, 10:10 PM	Interestingly, in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's guide it was suggested that general, average NPCs be generated with 3d6, considering any 1 to be a 3 and any 6 to be a 4. This gives a range of 6-15 in agreement with the above. However, although scores like 6 and 15 are possible here, they're equivalent in probability to 3 and 18 with regular 3d6; the small variance of this distribution means that the overwhelming majority of scores will be in the range 8-13, and the majority (66%) of characters will have all scores in that range. It looks like 15 points might fairly be said to be able to generate the majority of common folk after all. If you go by 1st Editions standards...
Solaris 12-23-06, 10:11 PM	If you go by 1st Editions standards... Assuming that kind of distribution for commoners doesn't contradict anything in 3E -- the human average is still given as 10-11 (i.e., 10.5) and a 15-point buy has average 10.44. The fact that most challenges are designed for 25-point characters isn't relevant here. Those challenges are for characters who are assumed to be above-average -- adventurers, not common folk, with an average of 11.73 instead of 10.5. Where 3E differs from the original standards, that's an accidental problem with 3E due to the designers attempting to work with the old standards but completely failing to understand them. For example, a Strength of 18 used to mean you could lift 180 pounds over your head, but now it's more than twice that. So while they still maintain a 3d6 distribution as average (the standard baseline for characters in both editions), they have inflated what the scores mean, so that the probabilities they're based on no longer make sense. Yet it's implied that those probabilities are still relevant -- a contradiction. That's a bug in the current implementation, not a problem with the original methods.
Sim_antix 12-24-06, 05:10 AM	Assuming that kind of distribution for commoners doesn't contradict anything in 3E -- the human average is still given as 10-11 (i.e., 10.5) and a 15-point buy has average 10.44. The fact that most challenges are designed for 25-point characters isn't relevant here. Those challenges are for characters who are assumed to be above-average -- adventurers, not common folk, with an average of 11.73 instead of 10.5. Where 3E differs from the original standards, that's an accidental problem with 3E due to the designers attempting to work with the old standards but completely failing to understand them. For example, a Strength of 18 used to mean you could lift 180 pounds over your head, but now it's more than twice that. So while they still maintain a 3d6 distribution as average (the standard baseline for characters in both editions), they have inflated what the scores mean, so that the probabilities they're based on no longer make sense. Yet it's implied that those probabilities are still relevant -- a contradiction. That's a bug in the current implementation, not a problem with the original methods. The old system was as flawed as the new one. A Str of 18 is the highest a human could have and yet I can lift 180 lbs over my head no problem...
Solaris 12-24-06, 05:16 AM	A Str of 18 is the highest a human could haveThat's not true; AD&D had provisions for exceptional strength (a score of 18/00 meant you could lift 470 pounds over your head) -- and there were examples of NPC humans with scores beyond 18. The game rules will always break down at some point. They were not intended to be a perfectly accurate model of reality -- they were intended to be a good enough model to play with. There are abstractions, special cases, and so on. The question is what we can reasonably conclude about the population, within the model, and subject to its quirks and assumptions, and how far we can bend its limitations for the sake of argument.
OravennasBrother 12-27-06, 12:17 PM	[QUOTE=Solaris;10995511]The game rules will always break down at some point. They were not intended to be a perfectly accurate model of reality -- they were intended to be a good enough model to play with. The question is what we can reasonably conclude about the population, within the model, /QUOTE] The 3.X model for attributes links them all to the same sort of scaling - thus they each give a +1 modifier at 12, a +2 at 14 etc. The Strength model explicitly includes data to indicate that every 5 points of "game scale" strength corresponds directly to a doubling of actual strength. Now ask yourself how many people are "twice" as intelligent as the median. Is it the upper 10%? No, it is far rarer. The same can be asked of any attribute, and the answer will be the same - fewer than 10% of the population has "twice" the RL ability of the median. Throw out the dice - they give unreasonable distributions for this scale of attributes. Further the "non-elite" array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 is explicitly stated to be a method for generating "normal" individuals. Now one can get the numbers 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 using a 15 point buy, as well as other distributions. So by RAW it is clear that a 15 point buy IS adequate to create "Average" or "Normal" people. Remember 15 point buy = Average People. Over 15 point buy = Above average people. FWIW - the multitude of "RL Tests" for D&D attributes available on the web tend to grossly exaggerate the scores of individuals taking the test. This is no doubt due to the designers inability to accurately rate themselves in order to generate normative values. If an "average" person takes one of these tests (or uses a self rating system) and obtains results higher than a 15 to 18 point buy, then one of two things must be true. Either the individual is not average, OR the attribute ratings are grossly inflated.
Solaris 12-27-06, 01:07 PM	So by RAW it is clear that a 15 point buy IS adequate to create "Average" or "Normal" people. Well, I think that if it were so clear we wouldn't have so many pages of argument. That's why I posted the most recent bit about the dice actually supporting the claim. The Strength model explicitly includes data to indicate that every 5 points of "game scale" strength corresponds directly to a doubling of actual strength. Yep, that's basically what I was talking about here: Where 3E differs from the original standards, that's an accidental problem with 3E due to the designers attempting to work with the old standards but completely failing to understand them. For example, a Strength of 18 used to mean you could lift 180 pounds over your head, but now it's more than twice that. So while they still maintain a 3d6 distribution as average (the standard baseline for characters in both editions), they have inflated what the scores mean, so that the probabilities they're based on no longer make sense. Yet it's implied that those probabilities are still relevant -- a contradiction. That's a bug in the current implementation, not a problem with the original methods.
OravennasBrother 12-27-06, 01:42 PM	Yep, that's basically what I was talking about here: OR perhaps the designers intent was to represent a huge range of abilty witha more modest range numbers. Sure everything capped at 25 in 2nd and earlier editions, but 3e made the decision to have an openended scale, but to keep it a scale which could represent extremes with a logarithmic/exponential progression instead. Given those decisions then the scale is OK, they just needed to make it clearer (as shown by posters who demonstrate they cannot understand the scale, NO I don't mean you Solaris) that the dice represent extremes FAR too often.
Solaris 12-27-06, 01:57 PM	Oh, there's nothing wrong with re-imagining the scale in principle. The bug is introduced when those changes break other game assumptions. Strength seems now to be a special case, probabilistically.
OravennasBrother 12-27-06, 02:39 PM	The bug is introduced when those changes break other game assumptions. Strength seems now to be a special case, probabilistically. I don't see how this necessarily follows. If the scale is the same for all attributes - 5 games points represents doublnig the RL ability, then the probabilities all get skewed to extremes by 3d6 dice representation. Using 3d6 as a method of creating PC's, who are by there nature NOT averge, does not change the scale. Rather it changes the perception of the scale. Why should doubling strength (from 10 to 15) give a +2 Bonus and increasing Dexterity by a smaller factor (whatever you imagnie the scale on dexterity to be for an increase from 10 to 15) give the same bonus? If the attributes all have the same mechanical effect, in game, then they should be on similar scales - game to RL - or the scale breaks down. Then Strength is NOT a special case and none of the attributes follow a distribution represented by the dice.
Solaris 12-27-06, 02:58 PM	Good points. And my personal write-off of 3E seems to be complete. Thanks, I guess :)
OravennasBrother 12-27-06, 04:03 PM	Good points. And my personal write-off of 3E seems to be complete. Thanks, I guess :) Didn't mean to ruin it for you. Perhaps it would help to consider it just an excuse to use the easier to apply "Non-Elite Array" to most encountered beings.
Solaris 12-27-06, 04:38 PM	No, you haven't ruined it. It's been a long time coming. This is more like a last straw. I like to be able to deal statistically with ability scores, and I loathe point-buy. So now that the only way to determine any statistical properties of the population is, at best, by inference from the various point-buys (which nobody can agree about anyway), I'm done; this game has divorced itself finally from one of the last vestigal resemblances it had to the Dungeons & Dragons I know and love. Dice FTW
Lethanic 12-27-06, 07:18 PM	. . .your enjoyment of the game is THAT married to rolling?
Solaris 12-27-06, 07:20 PM	. . .your enjoyment of the game is THAT married to rolling? Last straw of many. But we're getting off-topic.
Sim_antix 12-28-06, 08:02 AM	. . .your enjoyment of the game is THAT married to rolling? Is it or is it not a game involving dice?
Lethanic 12-28-06, 08:06 AM	. . to rolling for _stats_. I mean, I use point buy, and I definitely prefer it, but its not like I couldn't enjoy a game where stats were rolled. .
Sim_antix 12-28-06, 08:24 AM	. . to rolling for _stats_. I mean, I use point buy, and I definitely prefer it, but its not like I couldn't enjoy a game where stats were rolled. . And I am sure most everyone here feels the same way. We have our preferences sure but in the end the game is much much more than just character generation. Good Gaming All
JulesCARV 12-28-06, 09:05 PM	Lifting a max of 180 pounds over head means 9 strength, with 90 pounds as a heavy load and double that for "over head" weight, right? One should note that by RAW, if someone has an intelligence of X, they are fluent in at least (X - 8)/2 languages (minimum 1, unless X < 3). So someone with 14 intelligence must be fluent in 3 languages by the time they're young adults. My French is getting better, but isn't really conversational, so my int is around 11 at most. Anyway, how 'bout this: point buy starts at 6 rather than 8, but people get 27 point buys? How does that sound? Still averages to 10.5 (or lower), but allows more distribution. Cost is: Score Harsh cost Lenient cost 6 0 0 7 1 1 8 2 2 9 3 3 10 4 4 11 5 5 12 6 6 13 8 7 14 10 8 15 13 10 16 16 12 17 20 15 18 24 18
OravennasBrother 12-29-06, 12:39 PM	Using a Lower base (6) and larger number of points (27) with the same average, will only change things for those who ignore the "off" attributes. Essentially you are granting 2 extra points per attribute ignored to every player who is willing to play a character with 6 in one attribute (the Wizard's Strength, Charisma for many, Int and/or Wis for some fighters) which will lead to laughably imbalanced individuals (two 6's and two 14's for example) occuring with excessive regularity. Particularly since the "people are distributed like dice rolls" belief has been debunked.
obsidianrose 12-29-06, 02:57 PM	One of the groups I'm in played 60 points from 0 (Average of 10) in low magic with sanity from Unearthed Arcana. It wasn't pretty
Solaris 12-29-06, 03:04 PM	..
OravennasBrother 12-29-06, 03:16 PM	60 points starting from zero is more open to abuse than 27 starting from 6. I'm not familiar with the UA sanity rules, so .....