Post/Author/DateTime	Post
babysamurai 11-10-06, 06:55 AM	Has anyone ever tried a 22 Point Buy campaign? And if so, how did it work out for you?
Stev Beren 11-10-06, 07:02 AM	Are you kidding? WIth half the board thinking its an unforgivable crime nto to be able to have at LEAST three stats over 16 and nothing under ten? They would go apoplectic.
Millennium 11-10-06, 07:08 AM	Are you actually looking for underpowered characters? I ask for a reason: with 4d6-drop-lowest, you'll do better than a 22-point buy would allow for about 95% of the time. By contrast, you'll do better than a 25-point buy about 80% of the time, which is why the monsters in the MM are balanced around 25 points: most randomly-rolled characters will have an edge. A 22-point buy not only removes that edge but reverses it: the monsters are stronger than the players. Is that really what you want?
babysamurai 11-10-06, 07:14 AM	Are you kidding? WIth half the board thinking its an unforgivable crime nto to be able to have at LEAST three stats over 16 and nothing under ten? They would go apoplectic. Yeah, I’ve noticed a lot of players these days seem really spoiled. On the other hand, a lot of DM’s these days seem like control-freaks.
Stev Beren 11-10-06, 07:15 AM	Are you actually looking for underpowered characters? I ask for a reason: with 4d6-drop-lowest, you'll do better than a 22-point buy would allow for about 95% of the time. By contrast, you'll do better than a 25-point buy about 80% of the time, which is why the monsters in the MM are balanced around 25 points: most randomly-rolled characters will have an edge. A 22-point buy not only removes that edge but reverses it: the monsters are stronger than the players. Is that really what you want? . .then you just have them face different creatures in different numbers. Not hard. 25 point buy is plenty./
babysamurai 11-10-06, 07:21 AM	which is why the monsters in the MM are balanced around 25 points: But they are built using 15-point buy – 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11. I’m not saying I want underpowered characters, and any DM worth his/her salt takes any ability score generation method used into account when balancing encounters. So by your rational, if you use a PB above 25, the characters are now way more powerful than the monsters? I was merely wondering if anyone has tried 22 PB, and if so, what was it like? …I guess the only way to go is 25 PB?
darkness ninja of light 11-10-06, 07:43 AM	What's there to ask about? The character's will have lower stats and be somewhat weaker all the way around. If your group wouldn't mind having somewhat weaker characters, then go for it. You might want to tone the monster's down slightly, it depends.
RellenMarn 11-10-06, 07:52 AM	Actually I am currently involved in a Campaign where we use 22 point buy. We just defeated a CR 8 encounter at level 2! Now I admit there was a great deal of luck involved and there were 5 of us. To be honest I don't even notice it, but then we have only reached level 3. So far though its great fun, damn I wish I had put more points in Con though...
babysamurai 11-10-06, 08:02 AM	What's there to ask about? Reading comprehension? I was asking if people have used 22-point buy, and if so what were their "experiences", just like the lovely RellenMarn gave. …He/she gets it.
babysamurai 11-10-06, 08:04 AM	Actually, as monsters are built using a 15-point buy array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11). I think I will implement a 15-point buy for my next campaign. …Fair’s, fair?
RellenMarn 11-10-06, 08:10 AM	Awww shucks.... Incidently having recently started Dming (going great so far, or so they tell me :D ) I would love to run 22 point buy. Oh and by the way, this was the first character I ever made, so it seems even newer players (I believe 3 of our group are new) seem to be able to manage with it. Unfortunetly I think a good many of my players would be unhappy with it. Therefore, I am probably going to run with 4d6 drop 1's (grrr) and next campaign, once they are hooked, I will try 22 point buy.
babysamurai 11-10-06, 08:29 AM	Awww shucks.... Incidently having recently started Dming (going great so far, or so they tell me :D ) I would love to run 22 point buy. Oh and by the way, this was the first character I ever made, so it seems even newer players (I believe 3 of our group are new) seem to be able to manage with it. Unfortunetly I think a good many of my players would be unhappy with it. Therefore, I am probably going to run with 4d6 drop 1's (grrr) and next campaign, once they are hooked, I will try 22 point buy. First of all, congratulations on having the balls (no offence) for wanting to run a 22-point buy campaign. If your players are new, I would go with 25-point buy (elite array), what the game is designed around.
RellenMarn 11-10-06, 08:42 AM	I agree, but the 22 point buy campaign was one I was in, not one I run. The players in that game are mainly new, and its going well. When I start my campaign - I have just been running a few trials, etc., so far - I am probably going with 4d6 drop 1's, purely because I want to pick certain players who prefer to roll their stats. After the first campaign I will try to implement 22 point buy. I think it makes for a more tactical and staisfying game. Personally I remember the exploits of my 22 pint buy Rogue much more vividly than my Druid with 2 18's (4d6 reroll ones, roll 3 sets, though it might have been more than 3). It is much more satisfying when Kaldwin (the Rogue) suceeds, and I have to play him tactically...
babysamurai 11-10-06, 08:54 AM	After the first campaign I will try to implement 22 point buy. I think it makes for a more tactical and staisfying game. Right on, not many people seem to think that way. I foolishly let my players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two (I know, I know) for my current Planescape campaign. Well, one player rolled a 67-point buy equivalent. The campaign is going swimmingly, but never again. I’m a Point Buy man now.
Jhaelen 11-10-06, 09:01 AM	If your players are new, I would go with 25-point buy (elite array), what the game is designed around.Seconded. You may want to allow them to use Action Points, though. They work like a safety net for inexperienced players.
Gorteck 11-10-06, 10:13 AM	Ive done it and it was the only REAL big way it could challenge my group of ppl but we where still able to find ways on how to make our characters powerfull (thanks to a few things) it was harder then normol ... it makes you think more on ur char creation and eveything so ... and thats all thats realy challengeing us these days (Not much eles) Besides story plots lol none the less we still have fun
babysamurai 11-10-06, 10:23 AM	Ive done it and it was the only REAL big way it could challenge my group of ppl but we where still able to find ways on how to make our characters powerfull (thanks to a few things) Like what – I’m intrigued?
Molitor 11-10-06, 10:50 AM	I’m a Point Buy man now. Don't you feel like some of what makes D&D is that you roll dice, even in the very beginning making a character? Now don't get me wrong I've done the point buy thing plenty o' times I just think it lacks a certain 'fun' factor.
Edymnion 11-10-06, 11:06 AM	Actually, it depends on what kind of characters you want to run. In a 22 point buy, expect to see lots of archers, wizards, sneaky rogues, etc. Characters that only need one good stat to be playable. Do not expect to see many martial clerics, rangers, or god help anybody trying to play a paladin. MAD hurts in point buy, and the lower the points, the more it hurts. With 22 points, you'd be hard pressed to even make a sword and board fighter work well, unless you start dump statting all of his mental abilities, seeing as he's going to need good strength, constitution, and at least a passable dex. Especially for, like I said, Paladins that need a good Strength and Constitution to fill their role as combatant, good Wisdom to cast their spells with, and a good Charisma to use Lay on Hands and Divine Favor. No, mathematically 4d6 has the highest probability of producing a score of 13 in any given ability. Straight 13's is a 30 point buy, and thats what I use. 25 point buy is the equivolent to straight 3d6. Seeing as I play my games where the PCs are hero types that are typically just plain better physical/mental examples of humanity than Joe Dirtfarmer is, I typically will not play in or run a game with less than a 28 point buy.Don't you feel like some of what makes D&D is that you roll dice, even in the very beginning making a character? Now don't get me wrong I've done the point buy thing plenty o' times I just think it lacks a certain 'fun' factor.Not when stat rolling is the single most unbalanced factor in the game, no. Might as well say you should roll randomly for race and class while you're at it. And for what feat you take, and what spells you know.
Red12 11-10-06, 11:06 AM	I am currently in a 22 point buy game. Not only are we using 22 point buy, but low magic and the "Grim and Gritty" combat rules. Nothing like fighters capping at 40 hp at level 20.... not only that, but we're second level, and our first level was forced Aristocrat (we're all apart of a noble family) I'm not kidding heres my character sheet: http://www.sylnae.net/3eprofiler/view.php?id=42817 22 point buy isnt really *that* different My stats are: 8 12 10 16 10 12 with 25 point buy: 8 13 10 16 10 14 the only difference between a 22 and 25 point buy is a +1 modifier in one ability score. I know! Incredibly under-powered. :rolleyes: The campaign's going pretty good, I think so anyways...
babysamurai 11-10-06, 11:10 AM	Don't you feel like some of what makes D&D is that you roll dice, even in the very beginning making a character? I simply do not want to add randomness to important things that will affect my character throughout his/her entire career.
babysamurai 11-10-06, 11:12 AM	I am currently in a 22 point buy game. Not only are we using 22 point buy, but low magic and the "Grim and Gritty" combat rules. Nothing like fighters capping at 40 hp at level 20.... not only that, but we're second level, and our first level was forced Aristocrat (we're all apart of a noble family) I'm not kidding heres my character sheet: http://www.sylnae.net/3eprofiler/view.php?id=42817 22 point buy isnt really *that* different My stats are: 8 12 10 16 10 12 with 25 point buy: 8 13 10 16 10 14 the only difference between a 22 and 25 point buy is a +1 modifier in one ability score. I know! Incredibly under-powered. :rolleyes: The campaign's going pretty good, I think so anyways... Cool – good for you, I would love to get in on that campaign.
Molitor 11-10-06, 11:14 AM	Not when stat rolling is the single most unbalanced factor in the game, no. Might as well say you should roll randomly for race and class while you're at it. And for what feat you take, and what spells you know. Rolling randomly like THAT is not an intended part of the game. Remember 2nd edition what did you and your players do then? You rolled I'm guessing. It was fine then why the change? But I have rolled my stats more than I have ever used or been given a stat buy and I never felt unbalanced nor did I think anyone else was unbalanced(well perhaps mentally).
Molitor 11-10-06, 11:17 AM	I simply do not want to add randomness to important things that will affect my character throughout his/her entire career. Wow. I know you have played the older versions of the game,did you feel screwed over in them?
babysamurai 11-10-06, 11:23 AM	Wow. I know you have played the older versions of the game,did you feel screwed over in them? Well, I often did with hit points. "Gee Hal, you’ve rolled a 2 for your paladins hit points for the last 3 levels – bummer." …Lame Hopefully when 4th edition inevitably arrives, rolling for ability scores and hit points will go the way of the Dodo.
Red12 11-10-06, 11:26 AM	I like rolling stats. It feels more realistic. Everyone knows that natural athlete who has the 180 IQ and a cult of personality. Everyone also knows that meek shut in that coulndt pass 8th grade algebra. When you roll, you make do with what you get. I find rolling does encourage the more MAD classes, as opposed to point buy and SAD. If you roll high, MAD classes are more viable. If you roll low, MAD are your only option. Somewhere in the middle? Anything goes. I had a player roll nothing higher than a 13 and no lower than a 9. He played a scout. One of the most memorable characters I ever had the pleasure of sitting at a gaming table with. The opposite is true for point buy. A lower point buy gives you a lot of SAD classes. A high point buy just increases the power of the SAD classes while making MAD viable. My DC 2 wealth check...
Molitor 11-10-06, 11:26 AM	Yeah that does suck. HAHHAA well I'm beginning to agree with you on that topic.
Bluebrush 11-10-06, 12:13 PM	No, mathematically 4d6 has the highest probability of producing a score of 13 in any given ability. Straight 13's is a 30 point buy, and thats what I use. 25 point buy is the equivolent to straight 3d6.Hmm. I'd have thought straight 3d6 would produce something more like a 15 point buy. (3 10s, 3 11s) Then again that doesn't account for rolling low (Where no point buy value exists) or varience. Do you have anything where the math involved is discussed?
darkness ninja of light 11-10-06, 12:49 PM	Reading comprehension? I was asking if people have used 22-point buy, and if so what were their "experiences", just like the lovely RellenMarn gave. …He/she gets it. Yeesh, I understood perfectly. No need to be rude. I'm just saying that if you were trying to determine if you should use 22-point buy, it really depends on your player's feelings about it.
Grand Theft Otto 11-10-06, 01:30 PM	Reading comprehension? I was asking if people have used 22-point buy, and if so what were their "experiences", just like the lovely RellenMarn gave. …He/she gets it. Its pretty easy to figure out how the experience will go. Your characters will tend to have 1 less point in their prime req. So fighters will hit 5% less, dealing 1-2 points less, Rogues will get hit 5% more hit 5% less, hide sucessfully 5% less, etc. You'll be a tiny bit less powerful. I see no real reason to do it personally, as its not going to make a big enough difference in player power to give the uber weaking experience, and is just enough to irritate someone used to playing by normal rules.
Nadaka 11-10-06, 01:55 PM	I'm point buy all the way. I have had a campaign where 1 character had 3 18s and no score under 12, and another character had no score over 13. Since then, no rolling for me (except in special, low power games were you roll 3d6 in order and take what you get) I have never done a 22 point buy game. I have done 25, 28, 29, 30, and 32. Personally I like the 32 point buy as it gives the players more options. But there is nothing wrong with low PB if you take it into account when running the game.
Nom 11-10-06, 03:13 PM	MAD hurts in point buy, and the lower the points, the more it hurts.Are you sure about that? Or is this because with a low point buy you're operating almost exclusively in the 1:1 range and thus MAD needs to pay 2 points per score before it starts gaining MAD benefits? Of course, MAD classes will still get the benefit of more efficient use of ability boosters.
Michigan 11-10-06, 08:15 PM	We play 3d6, rolled for each stat. Str, then Dex, then Con... we're old school, and we want you kids off our lawn.:D
HaikenEdge 11-10-06, 08:30 PM	A bit off topic, but I think it really depends on the style of the DM. When I DM, I allow my players 48 point buy. But, then again, I generally throw bodies at them like that scene in LotR with the castle siege, and don't go by the 4 encounters per day rule (generally 6-8 encounters/day), so I actually think my players need those higher stats. If I were to run a 22 point buy game, it'd probably be a lot slower paced.
Edymnion 11-10-06, 09:38 PM	Rolling randomly like THAT is not an intended part of the game. Remember 2nd edition what did you and your players do then? You rolled I'm guessing. It was fine then why the change?Because I no longer find playing random character sheets enjoyable. I like to have at least a basic idea of what I want to play before I start trying to build them, which is something that you simply cannot do when rolling for stats. "Yeah, I want to play a bumbling, sickly, little old man of a wizard that knows just about every spell out there, and knows how to use them." "Welp, you didn't roll anything under a 14." "Dammit, okay, I'll have to come up with something else then..."Do you have anything where the math involved is discussed?There was one linked in the forum index, but it seems to have been lost to prunes.
Molitor 11-10-06, 10:00 PM	Because I no longer find playing random character sheets enjoyable. I like to have at least a basic idea of what I want to play before I start trying to build them, which is something that you simply cannot do when rolling for stats. "Yeah, I want to play a bumbling, sickly, little old man of a wizard that knows just about every spell out there, and knows how to use them." Well, I can see your point.
dalamb 11-10-06, 10:21 PM	But I have rolled my stats more than I have ever used or been given a stat buy and I never felt unbalanced nor did I think anyone else was unbalanced(well perhaps mentally).I recall a campaign where one character got stats so much lower than everyone else that the player just called him F, because he didn't deserve a full name.Don't you feel like some of what makes D&D is that you roll dice, even in the very beginning making a character? Now don't get me wrong I've done the point buy thing plenty o' times I just think it lacks a certain 'fun' factor.Some of the "I like rolling" folks seem to think the fun they have with the randomness justifies the complete, total, absolutely unjustifiable unfairness of one player rolling high and another rolling low.
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 01:30 AM	…I guess the only way to go is 25 PB? Not true. My group uses 4d6 drop the lowest and it seems to work just fine.
Solaris 11-11-06, 03:40 AM	Some of the "I like rolling" folks seem to think the fun they have with the randomness justifies the complete, total, absolutely unjustifiable unfairness of one player rolling high and another rolling low. I keep trying to tell people that we should be using point-buy for moves in Monopoly, but nobody listens.
Solaris 11-11-06, 03:47 AM	25 point buy is the equivolent to straight 3d6. The average score for all characters generated with 25 points is 11.7, while that for 3d6 is 10.5. The average point cost for all characters generated by 3d6 is 18.
PineBark 11-11-06, 03:50 AM	I keep trying to tell people that we should be using point-buy for moves in Monopoly, but nobody listens. I keep trying to tell people that we should be rolling dice for how much cards to pick in poker, but nobody listens. So... What's your point?
Solaris 11-11-06, 03:57 AM	Too subtle for you? Sorry, I thought it was pretty plain.
PineBark 11-11-06, 04:02 AM	Ok ok. I get your point :P. But that analogy simply says nothing at all, you can't compare DnD to other table games that have completely different rules.
Solaris 11-11-06, 04:06 AM	The rules are different, but they both use dice for randomization. Sometimes players will roll equitably, and other times they won't, but that's to be expected. In the long run, on average, it will balance out. It's not the end of the world like some people seem to think, or even completely, totally, absolutely unjustifiably unfair. It's a game with dice, and the odds are fair.
Nom 11-11-06, 08:08 AM	The rules are different, but they both use dice for randomization. Sometimes players will roll equitably, and other times they won't, but that's to be expected. In the long run, on average, it will balance out.Depends on what your scope is. Comparing to Monopoly: * Rolling dice for attacks, damage and save is analogous rolling dice for your moves. There are a lot of samples, and most of the time the "weight" of a roll on the game isn't major (though the endgame of Monopoly and some attack or save rolls in D&D can be quite important). * Rolling dice for ability scores is like rolling dice for your starting money. It introduces a persistent bias into the game. Except that your starting money can be expected to fluctuate wildly during the game while ability scores are relatively fixed. It's a single sample (set) done once per game that can significantly impact the player's position for the rest of the game. This isn't to say that rolling for ability scores is inherently "bad", but it is statistically likely to produce a power differential between your PCs and between your PCs and the game's calibration. If you are OK with this then there's not a problem.
LCD2YOU 11-11-06, 08:26 AM	MAD characters are perfectly fine and get great mileage not having stats over 14 when they first begin. But for 22 points, why even bother to play? Unless you like a "Joe Average campaign"I really can't see the point. As for what is equivalent to what in a point buy: 3d6 = 15 4d6 = 28 4d6 reroll 1s = 35 5d6 = 40 5d6 reroll 1s = 45 In my group, we play 4d6 reroll 1. I have given the players a choice of that or 35 points. What is so interesting is any player with any experience if they are going to play a Mage/Sorcerer or even a Rogue will always opt for the 35 points. Fighters in mst cases as well. MAD classes of Paladin or Monk are never point bought. That tells me how it is for MAD vs SAD on point buy.
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 09:37 AM	Because I no longer find playing random character sheets enjoyable. I like to have at least a basic idea of what I want to play before I start trying to build them, which is something that you simply cannot do when rolling for stats. "Yeah, I want to play a bumbling, sickly, little old man of a wizard that knows just about every spell out there, and knows how to use them." "Welp, you didn't roll anything under a 14." "Dammit, okay, I'll have to come up with something else then..."There was one linked in the forum index, but it seems to have been lost to prunes. Except you are forgetting that you can always volountarily lower your scores so that argument comes up a little short. Rolling gives you as much chance for great scores as it does for low scores and everyone has that same chance so there is nothing inherently unfair about it. Players who think it is "completely unjust" for their character to have 16 14 14 12 12 10 while someone else has 18 18 14 14 10 10 need to grow up because thats the way the world works. Look at sports. Does Terrel Owens have the same "point buy" as Donald Driver? Does Shaquille Oneil have the same "point buy" as Kobe Bryant? People are different and have different abilities. Deal with it.
Rahlious 11-11-06, 10:41 AM	The standard method of 4d6 drop the lowest is hard to compare to any point buy. It's hard to put a 'value" on the customization that point buy provides. A low number of points like 22 would keep me from playing certain classes for sure. I wouldn't want to bother with Monk or Paladin b/c their features are spread out over too many abilities. A Wizard would be fine though and so would a low-int Fighter (as opposed to a Fighter who wants Combat Expertise). I'm not opposed to a low number of points but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.
Molitor 11-11-06, 11:30 AM	I recall a campaign where one character got stats so much lower than everyone else that the player just called him F, because he didn't deserve a full name.Some of the "I like rolling" folks seem to think the fun they have with the randomness justifies the complete, total, absolutely unjustifiable unfairness of one player rolling high and another rolling low. Both of these issues would be addressed in my games, as a DM it is paramount players have fun.
ravenshrike 11-11-06, 04:01 PM	But they are built using 15-point buy – 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11. And are meant for one encounter. So if you want your characters to last less than 3 encounters, all well and good.
LCD2YOU 11-11-06, 05:26 PM	Both of these issues would be addressed in my games, as a DM it is paramount players have fun.Exactly. If I had a player roll nothing under 15 while most rolled 12 to 16 and on rolled nothing above a 13, I'd ask the high player to drop a stat or two and I'd have the other person roll again. If they still sucked, I'd tell them to use 35 points and build a character. One other thing about point buy, it rewards min/maxing and many characters end up looking the same.
green_yawgmoth 11-11-06, 07:09 PM	Are you kidding? WIth half the board thinking its an unforgivable crime nto to be able to have at LEAST three stats over 16 and nothing under ten? They would go apoplectic. If it's really "half the board", then I guess I must be only reading the other half, because I have not once seen anyone have a fit over their stats. I see plenty of people throwing tantrums about how "kids these days only want to have good stats and useful gear! Back in my day, we played 3d6, in order, and we liked it! Why, we were lucky if one of us got a weapon that did more than 1d6 damage that we could use, too! :rant:" But hey, I won't let things like reality get in your way. ;) On topic: I much prefer rolling, since it's enjoyable to me to have somewhat random stats. If I roll 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 15, hooray! I can play a gish. If I roll 16, 13, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8, then so be it; I'm playing a very cautious rogue. I have enough character ideas that I want to make that whatever I roll for stats is what I will be playing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 07:13 PM	I allow for re rolls if the total modifiers are significantly lower than the rest of the partys average but other than that I expect my players to be able to play any character and play them well.
darkness ninja of light 11-11-06, 08:20 PM	Look at sports. Does Terrel Owens have the same "point buy" as Donald Driver? Does Shaquille Oneil have the same "point buy" as Kobe Bryant? People are different and have different abilities. Deal with it. The problem with this, as well as the Monopoly and Poker metaphors, is that D&D is NOT a competition among the players. The players should have an equal chance, if they want, to have the character concept they desire without worrying about the rolls. If you get all 12's, and you had an idea about a character who's good at this type of thing, terrible at this other sort of thing, okay at this, etc. It doesn't work too well. Voluntarily lowering scores doesn't always help in this case either. Even with a low 22 point buy, you still have control over your character's stats. In any case, the rolling vs. point buy argument is off topic, isn't it?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 08:44 PM	Shaq & Kobe were actually teammates. Thats the point is that you can both be good at what you do even though one may be better at more things than you, that doesn't make your contribution to the team any less important.
Dhavaer 11-11-06, 09:54 PM	I once ran a 15 point buy game, with the only available class being Commoner. And it was a dungeon crawl. Seriously. It was surprisingly good fun.
darkness ninja of light 11-11-06, 09:54 PM	Shaq & Kobe were actually teammates. Thats the point is that you can both be good at what you do even though one may be better at more things than you, that doesn't make your contribution to the team any less important. Ah, teammates then, well what if the coach decided randomly to favor Kobe more than Shaq? Kobe gets new, performance enhancing equipment and Shaq has to wear weighted equipment during his games. What happens to the team? What happens to the individual's careers and their enjoyment of the game? Now, if Shaq asked for a challenge, that'd be different. Otherwise...
Solaris 11-11-06, 10:20 PM	Ah, teammates then, well what if the coach decided randomly to favor Kobe more than Shaq? Kobe gets new, performance enhancing equipment and Shaq has to wear weighted equipment during his games. Are you suggesting that a DM might give magical items to one character, and cursed items to another, on the basis of the fact that one player rolled higher stats than the other? The point was made that teammates (party members) might have different abilities (rolls) and that that's just life. Where are you going with this?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 10:21 PM	So what does DM favoritism have to do with rolling for abilities?
Solaris 11-11-06, 10:24 PM	Listening to some people, you'd think they believe D&D was broken and unfair for decades before point-buy came along to save the day.
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 10:29 PM	What I want to know is why stop there? If you really want to get rid of all the randomness that could potentially break your game then why not just assign them an array. Better yet you could have them preset for what class they choose. Oh and don't forget to just assign Hp when they level, you wouldn't want the cleric to end up with more Hp than the fighter, that wouldn't be fair and the player playing the fighter wouldn't be having fun anymore.
Solaris 11-11-06, 10:36 PM	Oh and don't forget to just assign Hp when they level, you wouldn't want the cleric to end up with more Hp than the fighter, that wouldn't be fair and the player playing the fighter wouldn't be having fun anymore.Apparently, we're only still rolling hit points as a vestige of "rolling obsession" and the "crappy design" of earlier editions: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=735622 But never fear, someone mentions in that thread that there's an option in the DMG for fixed hit points. My prediction for 4th edition: No More Dice. Even in combat, everyone will have the same lists of numbers to be used whenever a die roll would have been called for. For example, you might have 1,2,3,4,5,6 on your list for the d6. Every time you stab someone with your shortsword, you pick a number and cross it off. Once you've used them all, you start over with a fresh list. There could even be a high-powered campaign option, where the d6 list has 3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,6, or something. There would be similar lists for the d20, for hit rolls and skill checks, and all the other dice too (except the d12 -- that will finally have been gotten rid of entirely, of course). That way we can have everyone be equal, from character generation, to hit points, to combat, to skill checks, because they all get exactly the same rolls. Er, "rolls". We can call the new game PCD&D. Finally everyone will be equal and life will be fair, and nobody will ever again have to cry because he rolled a little lower than his friend did.
LCD2YOU 11-11-06, 11:13 PM	Listening to some people, you'd think they believe D&D was broken and unfair for decades before point-buy came along to save the day.Oh, it was. I've played for over 27 years now and I hated every minute of it until point buy came out. :D
LCD2YOU 11-11-06, 11:28 PM	To be fair, I did play in a short term, "Let's see what it's really like", part of a campaign just because. It was fun however as at 1st level (we had no stat over 12), even fighting an orc was serious business. The DM was rolling well (gosh, I better start using a more "fair system" where everyone gets the same roll) and we were rolling poorly and 3 of the 5 fell to a first level Orc Warrior. Sad thing was we were all 2nd level. No, we didn't last long. There's a reason hy "Joe Genero" doesn't go adventuring. What I'd like to know for those who use something to "even it out for the players" is how about high level NPCs? Those guys must have some decent stats don't you agree? A 15th Paladin must be more than an empty suit of armor with a nice smile. In a city of 50,000 people, statistically speaking, there are 140 people who have no stat below 13. Essentially, those guys' stats would be like 1d6+12. Those guys must really kick butt. How do the PCs handle such an uber character?
Edymnion 11-11-06, 11:58 PM	Except you are forgetting that you can always volountarily lower your scores so that argument comes up a little short.You got a page number for that? Seriously, show me in the book where it says you can lower what you rolled on any given set. Look at sports. Does Terrel Owens have the same "point buy" as Donald Driver? Does Shaquille Oneil have the same "point buy" as Kobe Bryant?Quite possibly yes, but they would not be the same level. People are different and have different abilities. Deal with it.Yeah, they do. But we're not talking about people, we're talking about roleplaying characters in a system that does it's damndest to make sure everybody is on even ground, and that everybody has a playable character, and yet still says its perfectly balanced for one guy to roll nothing above a 13, while somebody else rolls nothing under a 14. That high roller EASILY has the equivolent of a level adjustment in terms of gameplay balance compared to the lower stat guy. For a game that claims that balance is so important, it just flies right out the window when, for any given game, the rolls are so widely imbalanced to be able to completely make or break a character.Listening to some people, you'd think they believe D&D was broken and unfair for decades before point-buy came along to save the day.Well, it was. But then, the previous editions didn't put nearly as much effort into trying to make everything balanced as 3e does. I mean, just look at the weapons in 2e for proof of that. You either had crap, or "OMG, gotta use this!", and almost nothing in between. You had Rogues that could be a half dozen levels ahead of everybody else in the party simply because they found a treasure chest, because they got xp for every gold piece they stole, while a wizard would take forever to level up because of how many xp they required just to level. No, the previous editions were not balanced, but then, neither was the game itself.
Solaris 11-12-06, 12:24 AM	In a city of 50,000 people, statistically speaking, there are 140 people who have no stat below 13. Assuming a 3d6 distribution for the general population, there would be 15 such people. Out of curiosity, how are you generating your populace? Those guys must really kick butt. How do the PCs handle such an uber character? Maybe they don't. Should the PCs be better than everyone? If so, should they be better than everyone initially?
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 12:42 AM	You got a page number for that? Seriously, show me in the book where it says you can lower what you rolled on any given set. Its a pretty common "unwritten rule" I have never once heard of a DM sayinig "NO you can't lower that 15 to a 10" Ever. Yeah, they do. But we're not talking about people, we're talking about roleplaying characters in a system that does it's damndest to make sure everybody is on even ground, and that everybody has a playable character, and yet still says its perfectly balanced for one guy to roll nothing above a 13, while somebody else rolls nothing under a 14. That high roller EASILY has the equivolent of a level adjustment in terms of gameplay balance compared to the lower stat guy. For a game that claims that balance is so important, it just flies right out the window when, for any given game, the rolls are so widely imbalanced to be able to completely make or break a character. And as stated already anyone who rolls a set of scores with nothing above a preset limit on what contitues a playable character would be allowed a reroll. The rolls are not so widely unbalanced because everyone has the same chance to get good scores as they do bad ones. What does this mean? Well first that the law of averages says that everyone will have around the same number of high scores as medium and low ones. And secondly that everyone will have the best scores at some point in time. It isn't just one player getting all the glory all the time. Every new character is another chance for you to get the 3 18s and be the Uber Monk or Paladin or whatever.
Dragon Snack 11-12-06, 03:34 AM	ON TOPIC: 22 point buy is fine. I prefer higher, but it's still viable. If I had a player roll nothing under 15 while most rolled 12 to 16 and on rolled nothing above a 13, I'd ask the high player to drop a stat or two and I'd have the other person roll again. Then why bother rolling? If you are going to gimp the player who got lucky and let the player who was unlucky use point buy, just cut out the middle man. It's faster. I know I would be cheesed off if I rolled decent stats and had to live with them, when someone who rolled crap got to pick the exact stats that they wanted with a high powered point buy (not to mention if I rolled great stats). One other thing about point buy, it rewards min/maxing and many characters end up looking the same. Yeah, a min/maxer couldn't reroll their character (or suicide) until they got that multiple 18 uber-man (or, Heaven forbid, cheat on their rolls). We used to have a guy that used the 3.0 character generator to "roll" over 100 times until he got the stats he wanted (there was a little area for the DM that kept track of the rolls). Rolling rewards the bad aspects of min/maxing better than point buy. And it is absolutely FALSE that point buy characters end up looking the same. I've been in 3 different groups (over 7 campaigns, probably 50+ characters) that used point buy and nobody ever pulled out the "optimal" point buy. I don't think there was anything special about those groups. They bought stats for what they wanted their character to be. Plenty of odd stats too, since it makes the 4th level stat increase pay off faster. Players who think it is "completely unjust" for their character to have 16 14 14 12 12 10 while someone else has 18 18 14 14 10 10 need to grow up because thats the way the world works. People are different and have different abilities. Deal with it. *Ignoring the fact that even the first set of stats is a 32 point buy, which is high powered per the DMG* Telling people to "grow up" and "deal with it" is good way to win a debate. Oh wait, it's not. Thanks for the civility. Yeah, people are different. D&D isn't real life, it's a GAME. Even though it's a cooperative game, differing power levels still have an effect. 6 random rolls that effect your character in perpetuity can result in a wide disparity between players, forcing them into rolls they may not be happy with. I won't be playing a game long if I'm not happy playing it. Oh and don't forget to just assign Hp when they level, you wouldn't want the cleric to end up with more Hp than the fighter, that wouldn't be fair and the player playing the fighter wouldn't be having fun anymore. We give everyone max HP at first and second level and 75% of their hit dice every level after that. It avoids the gimped Fighters and Barbarians. Our contempt for the dice knows no bounds! The rolls are not so widely unbalanced because everyone has the same chance to get good scores as they do bad ones. You're kidding, right? What does this mean? Well first that the law of averages says that everyone will have around the same number of high scores as medium and low ones. ??? I think you need to look up the law of averages. 6 sets of data (rolls of the dice) will RARELY give you an "average" distribution, it's too small of a sample. And secondly that everyone will have the best scores at some point in time. It isn't just one player getting all the glory all the time. Every new character is another chance for you to get the 3 18s and be the Uber Monk or Paladin or whatever. Except that I don't want disposable characters. I play my characters for YEARS (ideally). If one guy rolls great, I would rather not play his supporting cast (unless that's my character concept) for the next couple of years - I can DM for that. Plus, it's a logical fallacy. Just because I rolled crappy stats one time does NOT mean I'll roll great stats the next.
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 03:51 AM	Except that I don't want disposable characters. I play my characters for YEARS (ideally). If one guy rolls great, I would rather not play his supporting cast (unless that's my character concept) for the next couple of years - I can DM for that. Its not a supporting cast role, maybe he is a gifted athlete but kind of brain dead and without your high Int wizard around to keep him out of trouble he would be dead before level 3? Remember it benefits the whole team to have the greatest quarterback or wide reciever, even if they do steal a little bit of your spotlight at least your racking up the Ws right? Plus, it's a logical fallacy. Just because I rolled crappy stats one time does NOT mean I'll roll great stats the next. No your right. You might not roll the best stats the next time, or even the time after that. But you will and in the meantime you still get to play and have fun, maybe you aren't loaded on stats but your character can still perform heroic deeds and earn fame just like anyone else. Also no DM I know forces a player to keep "crappy" stats, that is a problem with DM vs Player Mentality and not rolling for stats.
Manyfist 11-12-06, 04:11 AM	I am using a 40point buy in my upcoming Dark Sun Campaign (Stats start at 10). I was thinking of throwing them directly into two city state war. They "volunteered" , and were given 10 Cp to in courage their stay, besides their death should they escape. 22 point buy... a little underpowered imo, I like power, and RP goodies. So Its really up to the DM. Edit: I don't like rolling for stats because it takes alot longer and those miracle "6-18's" can happen. Point Buy you have set # of points, you're a Hero you shouldn't have random stats. Although point buy is the onlything we don't roll in my campaigns, and in my friends.
Dragon Snack 11-12-06, 04:25 AM	Its not a supporting cast role, maybe he is a gifted athlete but kind of brain dead and without your high Int wizard around to keep him out of trouble he would be dead before level 3? But you're assuming that I had a high Int and assuming the "star" had a low Int. Too often the "star" player has no weakness because of his rolls. Sure, I can have fun playing a supporting role (and I often choose to), but when I'm forced into it because of my lackluster rolls and someone elses phenomenal "luck" - it's not fun and quickly gets annoying. Been there, done that, use point buy now... My first 3.0 character was a Dwarven Fighter/Rogue. S 12, D 14, C 14, I 12, W 10, Ch 8 (and these were from my second roll, since I threw out the first set). +5 stat mods (and oddly, a 22 point buy even though he was rolled), should be fine. Only the "star" had 2 18s and a 16, with nothing under a 12. Every other character had better stats than mine. One player even told me he didn't like my character, because he didn't pull his own weight. He should have been fine, he was just outshined by Mr. Lucky, Mr. Rolled 100 Times, and Mr. Cheated (well, Mr. Fuzzy Math at least)...
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 04:41 AM	But you're assuming that I had a high Int and assuming the "star" had a low Int. Too often the "star" player has no weakness because of his rolls. I have been playing for 15 years and have only ever seen 3 sets of rolls that had no score below a 12. Sure, I can have fun playing a supporting role (and I often choose to), but when I'm forced into it because of my lackluster rolls and someone else's phenomenal "luck" - it's not fun and quickly gets annoying. Been there, done that, use point buy now... I am not here to talk anyone out of using point buy. If you like it then use it, but don't tell me or others that rolling is archaic and unbalancing just because you prefer to use point buy. Let everyone make up their own minds as to what constitutes fun for them in how their characters get their abilities. My first 3.0 character was a Dwarven Fighter/Rogue. S 12, D 14, C 14, I 12, W 10, Ch 8 (and these were from my second roll, since I threw out the first set). +5 stat mods (and oddly, a 22 point buy even though he was rolled), should be fine. Only the "star" had 2 18s and a 16, with nothing under a 12. Every other character had better stats than mine. One player even told me he didn't like my character, because he didn't pull his own weight. He should have been fine, he was just out shined by Mr. Lucky, Mr. Rolled 100 Times, and Mr. Cheated (well, Mr. Fuzzy Math at least)... Well apparently you were playing with at least two bad players and a bad DM, that is hardly a problem with character generation methods and more to do with player/DM styles. To break it down Mr Lucky It happens. Mr 100 rolls The DM should have put a stop to this. You can re-roll if the stats are unplayable not if you just want to keep rolling until you get two 18s and nothing under 12. Mr Cheated The DM should have been on top of this as well. No cheating. Period. And if he needed to be corrected on his math then the DM needed to be the one doing it. Mr Pink Hey how come I gotta be Mr Pink?
Dragon Snack 11-12-06, 05:25 AM	I have been playing for 15 years and have only ever seen 3 sets of rolls that had no score below a 12. My groups must have some hot dice. I am not here to talk anyone out of using point buy. Not for nothing, but this thread is about using a 22 point buy. You came into the thread to tell babysamurai to use 4d6 drop the lowest... ...don't tell me or others that rolling is archaic and unbalancing just because you prefer to use point buy. I actually suggested "pick your own stats" to my players when I started my current campaign. They declined in favor of point buy... Well apparently you were playing with at least two bad players and a bad DM, that is hardly a problem with character generation methods and more to do with player/DM styles. Mr Cheated The DM should have been on top of this as well. No cheating. Period. And if he needed to be corrected on his math then the DM needed to be the one doing it. Agreed. It was the DMs first 3.0 campagin as well, so I'm sure he was more lenient because of that. He did eventually catch on to Mr Cheated and smack him down, but that wasn't until about 8th level. Mr Pink Hey how come I gotta be Mr Pink? I think you found the only line from that movie that can be posted on the boards... :thumbsup:
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 08:26 AM	Assuming a 3d6 distribution for the general population, there would be 15 such people. Out of curiosity, how are you generating your populace?Are you asking me what I do specifically or how came to that number? If the former, it's complicated. In a nutshell, while I use 3d6, I have it that there are a few stats that have minimums. Constitution is an example. I have it as a Dark Ages style campaign and those born with a Con less than 7 don't survive the first 2 years of life. There's more but that is what I think is a reasonable idea. As for the 140 out of 50,000, the statistical distribution for 3d6 is as follows: Roll : # out of 216 3 : 1 4 : 3 5 : 6 6 : 10 7 : 15 8 : 21 9 : 25 10 : 27 11 : 27 12 : 25 13 : 21 14 : 15 15 : 10 16 : 6 17 : 3 18 : 1 So for a roll to be 13 or greater, the chance is 1+3+6+10+15+21=56 56/216 = 0.25926 The odds of having all 6 stats 13 or better = (0.25926)6 = 0.0003 Oops, I screwed up. What I did was for NPCs with all stats 12 and over. The number of NPCs with all stats 13 and over is just 15, or 3 per 10,000. The number of NPCs per 1000 with all stats between 8 and 13 inclusive would be = 21+25+27+27+25+21 = 146 which translates into about 96 per 1000. Or about 1 in 10. Remember, these are NPCs with stats that are only 8 to 13. For NPCs with all stats 13 or less, they would make up over 1/3 of the population or 346 per 1000.Maybe they don't. Should the PCs be better than everyone? If so, should they be better than everyone initially?No. But they should be in 90th percentile, not in the middle of the pack. Also everyone in the world will gain stats as they advanced. Granted they don't, at least the vast majority, won't gain more than 2 maybe 3 points to their stats. The number of opportunities, at least in my game, to gain stats just don't happen often if at all.
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 08:53 AM	ON TOPIC: 22 point buy is fine. I prefer higher, but it's still viable.For Joe Genero, sure.Then why bother rolling? If you are going to gimp the player who got lucky and let the player who was unlucky use point buy, just cut out the middle man. It's faster.Whoa there Tex. I said I'll ask. I will not force them. But if I get a player with 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16 for "rolled stats", I will question them. This is especially true if they rolled it outside of the game. I will ask them to use their lucky dice one more time and roll again.I know I would be cheesed off if I rolled decent stats and had to live with them, when someone who rolled crap got to pick the exact stats that they wanted with a high powered point buy (not to mention if I rolled great stats).Well, if you rolled great stats in front of everyone and you wanted to keep them, you can. If you rolled "before you got there" I will seriously question your rolls. See, I did once roll real high when I was away from the table. The DM at the time asked that I tone down 3 stats. Guess what, I did. Even if you rolled 50 characters first and then choose one to bring in, I'd still ask.Yeah, a min/maxer couldn't reroll their character (or suicide) until they got that multiple 18 uber-man (or, Heaven forbid, cheat on their rolls).Wow. You got a lot of mileage from your strawman. A min/max in point buy is that everyone has 6 "even stats". If you really wanted to make it non min/max, than every PC has 3 odd and 3 even stats.We used to have a guy that used the 3.0 character generator to "roll" over 100 times until he got the stats he wanted (there was a little area for the DM that kept track of the rolls). Rolling rewards the bad aspects of min/maxing better than point buy.Sounds like the DM should just say, "Ok, I'm here, roll your stats now". Then the DM gets to watch. Seems to me that if the other players would like the DM to keep close tabs on such a player. Also, Min/Max doesn't mean "lots of points". It means using what you have to an extreme. Having all high stats is uberism or munchkinism, not Min/Max.And it is absolutely FALSE that point buy characters end up looking the same.Really? OfI get to see this.I've been in 3 different groups (over 7 campaigns, probably 50+ characters) that used point buy and nobody ever pulled out the "optimal" point buy.Well goody for you. Something tells me though you're doing one of the following: A: Didn't see everyones stats B: People optimized their characters in a way you didn't understand as they had other plans for their PC C: Think that characters based of of +/- 2 off of each other are really different.I don't think there was anything special about those groups. They bought stats for what they wanted their character to be. Plenty of odd stats too, since it makes the 4th level stat increase pay off faster.Of course not. They were upstanding gamers, like the guy who wanted to roll 100 times, who'd never think of cheating or taking advantage. Or did you mean something else?
darkness ninja of light 11-12-06, 09:35 AM	Whew, I missed a lot. Are you suggesting that a DM might give magical items to one character, and cursed items to another, on the basis of the fact that one player rolled higher stats than the other? The point was made that teammates (party members) might have different abilities (rolls) and that that's just life. Where are you going with this? It sounds like I was saying that, but no. What I'm saying is that the players are going into the game with different stats (because they more or less have equivalent stats as is). With weighted down equipment, dexterity (and perhaps even Constitution) would be lessened. It's unfair. [/QUOTE] Listening to some people, you'd think they believe D&D was broken and unfair for decades before point-buy came along to save the day. Point buy definately saved the day for many of us. Not every instance of rolling for stats was unfair, certainly, but when it does occur where the scores are greatly uneven, you realize how useful point buy can be. What I want to know is why stop there? If you really want to get rid of all the randomness that could potentially break your game then why not just assign them an array. Better yet you could have them preset for what class they choose. Oh and don't forget to just assign Hp when they level, you wouldn't want the cleric to end up with more Hp than the fighter, that wouldn't be fair and the player playing the fighter wouldn't be having fun anymore. Please. It's about CUSTOMIZATION not a "fear of randomness". With point buy you choose more or less, what scores you have. With normal arrays, you still don't necassarily get the character you want because they tend to be the "awesome at this, really crappy at this, okay with everything else" type of character. With hp, yeah, I do find it annoying when a nice strong character is ruined by low hp, or a "weak, frail" character gets awesome rolls, regardless of high/low constitution. It's not necassary for everyone to have the same HP though, that would be unfair to those who have chosen a higher constitution. The rolls are not so widely unbalanced because everyone has the same chance to get good scores as they do bad ones. No, there's a fairly good chance that people will get roughly even scores compared to each other and the game will be okay, indeed. However, there's also a good chance that one or more of the player's will be greatly overpowered/underpowered compared to the rest. That's what makes it unbalanced. What does this mean? Well first that the law of averages says that everyone will have around the same number of high scores as medium and low ones. And secondly that everyone will have the best scores at some point in time. It isn't just one player getting all the glory all the time. Every new character is another chance for you to get the 3 18s and be the Uber Monk or Paladin or whatever. 1. We don't necassarily want an "uber" character. We want "our" character and we want that character to at least be on par with the others. 2. This only really works for groups that have to roll new characters all the time. For some groups (unfortunately, not mine) it could be quite a while before they decide to try a new adventure and roll new characters. Also no DM I know forces a player to keep "crappy" stats, that is a problem with DM vs Player Mentality and not rolling for stats. Oh yeah, some do, definately. Even so, "crappy stats" doesn't always mean "really low scores". It could be crappy in comparison to other players, or crappy when consdering your character. When I say that, I don't mean that I planned my character to be a goddess among men and she got average scores. I mean I had in mind what my idea percentage of good to bad stats would be, and the dice did not deliver.
justdmjeff 11-12-06, 11:07 AM	Not for nothing, but this thread is about using a 22 point buy. You came into the thread to tell babysamurai to use 4d6 drop the lowest... Not for nothing, but I think the actual quote just stated that he uses 4d6 drop the lowest.. Sim_antix did not tell the OP to use it. If you want all the characters in a game to be the same, use the point buy system. And do not tell me that they are not the same. If you are using point buy to balance the characters, they are the same. If you are using point buy because the game is designed on a 25 point buy, then you should probably use only a 25 point buy system. If part of the fun of the game is creating a character, then roll those dice. Disclaimer: I am not promoting any one way to create a character. Well, yes, I am. Roll those dice, baby. But I am not trying to talk anyone out of a point buy. If that is how you enjoy the game, by all means, go ahead and do it.
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 02:17 PM	Not for nothing, but I think the actual quote just stated that he uses 4d6 drop the lowest.. Sim_antix did not tell the OP to use it. What he said. But seriously I really didn't tell anyone to roll and not use point buy, baby_samurai had statted that "the only way to go was 25 point buy" and I corrected that statement by offering another way to go. If you want all the characters in a game to be the same, use the point buy system. This pretty much sums up my problem with Point Buy. Even so, "crappy stats" doesn't always mean "really low scores". It could be crappy in comparison to other players, or crappy when consdering your character. When I say that, I don't mean that I planned my character to be a goddess among men and she got average scores. I mean I had in mind what my idea percentage of good to bad stats would be, and the dice did not deliver. See thats the problem "crappy in comparison" if you got the scores you needed to make your character playable then it doesn't matter what anyone else rolls, play your character and have fun. It is nothing but metagaming to sit and stew over someones character having better stats then you. In real life thats how it works, maybe you aren't as gifted naturally as Michael Jordan but that shouldn't stop you from trying to be the best basket ball player that you can be. Besides who even says you are a basketball player? Maybe you are Jeff Gordan and it doesn't matter how badly Jordan would waste you at most sports, he can't drive a car at 200+ mph like you can. Each of you brings something to the table even though Jordan dominates Gordan in a stat comparison.
adamb0nd 11-12-06, 02:53 PM	point buy is great for games where the pc's should all be slightly above average characters. Horror games and the like work well with this. It prevents some characters from being underpowered from crappy rolls, and other characters too powerful from good ones. It also allows for better customization of your character. I personally like it, most people don't.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 03:09 PM	IMO, if my DM tried to make me do 22 point buy I'd leave on the spot. Just to clear the water: 1. I have nothing against those who like point buy. 2. I have nothing against the point buy system. However, I have character concepts that need to have higher base stats in order for them to work. No, these are not munchkin type builds, rather an odd combination of classes in order for the character to fit a certain image. Let me provide an example of the current character who's backstory I'm working on: Soulknife 6/ Beguiler 3/ Soulknife 2/ Effigy Master 5/ Kensai 4 Ideal Base Stats: Str 16, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 13, Cha 17 I know what most point buy people are thinking at the moment: OMG! Those are uber stats! You munchkin! To justify, you have to look at the pros and cons of this build. Pros: A. With the levels of Beguiler, he can obtain truestrike in order to almost never miss in melee. B. With the levels in Effigy Master he can make a construct to be his bodyguard while he gets his Mindblade boosts ready. C. The levels in Kensai ensure he'll have a +5 weapon and be able to keep up with the other meleers at higher levels. D. Conbined with Effigy Master he'll practically be an 8th level Beguiler with spells to boost himself and heal his construct. Cons: A. If you take the time to stat up this build, you'll come to realize he only has a BAB of +12/+1. That second attack will probably never hit much of anything at higher levels. Nor will that first attack hit much without a good roll or Truestrike. B. He needs these stats to even have a fair chance at survival. Look at his total average HP at level 20 comes out to: 80 HP. A straight Soulknife 20 build has an average HP of 100 for comparison. C. At level 20 he'll have rather poor Fort and Reflex saves. In fact without the huge boost to Dex he'd have virtually no Rexflex save to speak of. Level 20 Saves: Fort +6, Reflex +6, Will +17 D. If playing under an evil DM, his Effigy will be under constant fire from creatures or environmental conditions. Without the Effigy this character is a sitting duck once he blows his one big hit. E. He needs a fairly high Int score just to get enough skill points to classify for the PrCs by Cross Classing some skill ranks. Without that this build isn't even possible. F. Without that Dex score and/or Mithral Breastplate, his AC is dismally low for something that pops into melee for one big swipe and retreats. Even your underfunded rogue would have a better AC. G. In order to maintain his construct, odds are he'll have to burn most of his spells on Repair Minor/Moderate/Major Damage. H. In order to do a decent amount of damage, he has to burn up almost all of his feats on things like Psionic Weapon and Arcane Strike at later levels (also losing precious spells). 1. If he misses his hit, he burns up his sacrificed spell and Psionic focus for nothing. 2. After this large damage hit, he needs a full-round to recover his Psionic focus. So he's only hitting every other round. Or once every 3 rounds when you bring Truestrike into the equation. Sure the build has a lot of flaws, but I like it because it suits my character's image/history and I think it would be fun to play. If I were rolling for stats, I'd at least have a chance of being able to make this build. In 22 point buy such a build could not exist at all. ;) Funny how people say "Point buy balances things" when in fact it seems to mainly serve to ban underpowered builds like this from the game.
Solaris 11-12-06, 03:43 PM	Ideal Base Stats: Str 16, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 13, Cha 17 Welcome to the top .0025 percent of the population. If I were rolling for stats, I'd at least have a chance of being able to make this build. 1 in 38871.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 03:47 PM	Welcome to the top .0025 percent of the population. Did you even read the rest of my post? And also, D&D is fantasy, not reality. :P Saying that "Only X% of Earth's population is that good" is a bit of bunk whenever you're trying to apply it to a world that doesn't really exist. 1 in 38871. I'll take that over 0% any day of the week. Not to mention I called those bases stats "ideal", meaning there's room for nerfing. I'd could easily take a hit to both Str and Cha by at most -3 each. :P
Solaris 11-12-06, 03:54 PM	Saying that "Only X% of Earth's population is that good" is a bit of bunk whenever you're trying to apply it to a world that doesn't really exist. That percent was of the D&D population, assuming an average of 10-11 and the same standard deviation as 3d6.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 04:01 PM	That percent was of the D&D population, assuming an average of 10-11 and the same standard deviation as 3d6. Ah, my bad then. :embarrass Even still, in truth the stats really shouldn't be a guage of how powerful a character is. For example with my build above, I could take a level Swordsage 19/ Sorceror 1 with stats of 10 in each slot and kill my Soulknife build in one hit without leaving anything to chance. So why should stats be such a big deal in the first place? Edit: The Sorceror is just there for Truestrike. Upon reflection even a straight Swordsage 20 with 10 in every stat could kill the Soulknife in one blow.
Solaris 11-12-06, 04:04 PM	So why should stats be such a big deal in the first place?I think that's what's being debated :)
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 04:11 PM	I think that's what's being debated :)I am so sick and tired of logic and just good ol' facts being presented on these boards. How can we devolve into jargon and cliche spewing morons if things like LOGIC and FACTS are going to be used? Yeah, your father does smell of elderberries. Now stop or I shall taunt you a second time.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 04:11 PM	I think that's what's being debated :) So from what I can tell is this boiling down to a view of two different logics? From what I can tell (although as you've seen my observation isn't exactly up to par today) there are two main arguments against random stat rolling vs stat buying. 1. Rolling for stats makes no sense as you can end up with a character that really shouldn't exist but once every century or so. (The .0025 percent you pointed out.) & 2. Buying stats doesn't make any sense as it allows for little to no variation. (Like taking the population of America and saying that without failure X% of them will have a strength score of X)
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 04:13 PM	So from what I can tell is this boiling down to a view of two different logics? From what I can tell (although as you've seen my observation isn't exactly up to par today) there are two main arguments against random stat rolling vs stat buying. 1. Rolling for stats makes no sense as you can end up with a character that really shouldn't exist but once every century or so. (The .0025 percent you pointed out.) & 2. Buying stats doesn't make any sense as it allows for little to no variation. (Like taking the population of America and saying that without failure X% of them will have a strength score of X)There is a reason why they're called lies, damnable lies and statistics.
Solaris 11-12-06, 05:01 PM	There is a reason why they're called lies, damnable lies and statistics. Unfortunately, most people who quote that don't understand why. It's not that statistics are lies; probability and statistics are very powerful and useful descriptive and predictive tools. You can compute, for example, that if you want to be certain of your result to within x percent then you need to interview y people. As long as you're aware of your assumptions and the limits of your accuracy, there's no problem. The problem comes when people use statistics deceptively.
Reversefigure4 11-12-06, 05:05 PM	Except you are forgetting that you can always volountarily lower your scores so that argument comes up a little short. You can voluntarily lower your scores? Where can I find this rule? (Edit: Whoops, you did answer this). OK, it's an "unwritten" rule - meaning it's a houserule, only as valid as a DM that randomly says "Sure you can bring your scores up a bit". For the record, I have seen DMs that don't allow you to lower your scores, because it destroys the purity of the randomness that is dice rolling. It ends up with the "Physically weak cleric, sustained by his faith" putting his lowest 15 into Str, against the "Super-strong barbarian smashing machine" putting his highest 14 into Str.
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 06:02 PM	Again that is a problem with bad DMs and not with character creation methods. Also If you have a 14 as your highest score then you would probably be allowed a re-roll in most of the games out there. More also why do the proponents of Point Buy always use such ridiculous scenarios to prove their points? When have you ever had someone with nothing below a 15 and someone else had nothing above a 14? And if he had nothing but 12s 13s and 14s then its really not a horrible character anyways and if he takes Half Orc as his race then he will have a 16 in Str.
Nom 11-12-06, 06:11 PM	G. In order to maintain his construct, odds are he'll have to burn most of his spells on Repair Minor/Moderate/Major Damage.Or do what any caster with half a brain does and use a wand. If I were rolling for stats, I'd at least have a chance of being able to make this build. In 22 point buy such a build could not exist at all. ;) Funny how people say "Point buy balances things" when in fact it seems to mainly serve to ban underpowered builds like this from the game.I don't see any compelling reason you couldn't attempt this build on 22 points. It might be less effective than you complain it is already, but it doesn't "ban" it. Perhaps we should introduce a new mechanic: call them "idiot points". The idea is that you quantify pathologically bad build combinations and allocate extra ability points to compensate. This allows people to do self-confessed stupid builds and keep them playable without risking overpowering better designed character builds. Note that there are two balance issues: PC to PC and PC to game. Some people don't mind playing PCs who don't have a "speciality" compared to the rest of the part; most do. To use another poster's example, being "that chump that tags along for the ride with Michael" becomes stale quite quickly. It might be nice to win a few games because you've got an uber player in your social side, but pretty soon you realise that you're not playing; he is. As for PC to game, every week or so these boards get an inexperienced DM wondering why CRs don't work with their average score of 16 party with twice recommended wealth per level. :rolleyes: Of course, a 22 point game may have CR problems in the opposite direction, in that they are nominally underpowered for their level. 3 points isn't a huge difference, however; noticeable, but not much more.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 06:27 PM	Or do what any caster with half a brain does and use a wand. I don't see any compelling reason you couldn't attempt this build on 22 points. It might be less effective than you complain it is already, but it doesn't "ban" it. Perhaps we should introduce a new mechanic: call them "idiot points". The idea is that you quantify pathologically bad build combinations and allocate extra ability points to compensate. This allows people to do self-confessed stupid builds and keep them playable without risking overpowering better designed character builds. Few problems: 1. Crafting a wand requires the Craft Wand feat. In this build I have no spare feats for such a thing. The main focus of this build is melee. Not casting. The casting levels are just a means to an end in terms of flavor. 2. In a 22 Point Buy I wouldn't be able to boost the Int score high enough to have the bare minimum skill points required while still giving the character some hope in heck of surviving. Also, this isn't a "Bad Build". It just requires a few things extra in order for it to work. What's the difference between playing a slightly gimped build and playing as a Kobald? :P Both are playable, they just won't be doing any God-smiting like a twinked out character with the same stat line. Finally, I'm not "complaining" about my build. I was just pointing out the fact that even though the stat line makes it seem "Uber overpowered" it is in fact, a build that has it's own strength and weaknesses. Therefore won't be a game dominating force that makes other players feel like a 3rd wheel as many advocates of the Point Buy system seem to argue that rolling for stats does. It's like saying "My Orc character sucks at social roles". It's not a complaint, it's just a fact.
darkness ninja of light 11-12-06, 07:42 PM	If you want all the characters in a game to be the same, use the point buy system Totally untrue. Have you really used point buy? I find it hard to believe that you have. For one thing, each character will have different roles, thus obviously their stats will be in different spots and they'll be quite different from each other that way. Secondly, players will choose to divy up their point buy in different ways. Some will go for moderation with their character, with their highest stat maybe a 14 and such (likely to happen with the 22 point buy, but not always). Others will go for a very high stat, with some gripping flaws elsewhere. Others will go for a mix. Lastly, it's the character themselves that trully make a character unique. Not the stats. A 14 and a 12 in a stat really aren't that different anyways. It's not like rolled characters in a fair game (as in, one where the stats are roughly even) are really all that "different" anyways. As for a case where there are indeed the EXACT SAME STATS, I've been in an online game where two (almost three) characters had the exact same scores. We all did entirely different things for the group, though, and were completely different characters. Even with rolling, a sorcerer, bard, and a paladin might all have charisma 18, yet they likely will choose to manifest their talent in different ways. If they choose to manifest in the same way, they'd still make an interesting team.
LCD2YOU 11-12-06, 09:46 PM	Unfortunately, most people who quote that don't understand why. It's not that statistics are lies; probability and statistics are very powerful and useful descriptive and predictive tools. You can compute, for example, that if you want to be certain of your result to within x percent then you need to interview y people. As long as you're aware of your assumptions and the limits of your accuracy, there's no problem. The problem comes when people use statistics deceptively.Oh yes, that is so very, very true. If someone were to say to me, "I've increased my favourable rating by 50% as a real human being", I'll ask if that means mom and dad cajoled your brother into giving you a favourable rating. What Solaris says is very true. What we are describing is "spin".
Molitor 11-12-06, 10:18 PM	I allow for re rolls if the total modifiers are significantly lower than the rest of the partys average but other than that I expect my players to be able to play any character and play them well. You know people, this is probably the best way to look at this topic. I could not have said it better. :tiphat:
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 11:10 PM	*snip* but other than that I expect my players to be able to play any character and play them well. You know people, this is probably the best way to look at this topic. I could not have said it better. :tiphat: So if I hate beer you're going to shove Bud Light down my throat? :P Some people don't like Elves, or Mages or whatever for flavor reasons. Expecting your players to love everything and be able to play everything is a rather Hitler-ish approach don't you think?;)
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 11:16 PM	Sorry but mentioning Hitler or nazis means that you lose. Thanks for playing. That being said I will address the one point you made about not forcing a player to play a race or class they don't like. It is a great point and unfortuanately is also a rather weak argument against what I was saying seeing as how I was referring to ability scores that they rolled and not anything to do with their choice of characters to write up. That is their choice and has absolutely nothing to do with ability score generation methods.
ZeronHitaro 11-12-06, 11:28 PM	Sorry but mentioning Hitler or nazis means that you lose. Thanks for playing. That being said I will address the one point you made about not forcing a player to play a race or class they don't like. It is a great point and unfortuanately is also a rather weak argument against what I was saying seeing as how I was referring to ability scores that they rolled and not anything to do with their choice of characters to write up. That is their choice and has absolutely nothing to do with ability score generation methods. Well would a more modern dictator be more to your taste? Plus the ;) was supposed to indicate a more light hearted nature to the question. I wasn't arguing against your arguement on stat generation, that's why that part was snipped and at this point I'm getting lost. >.<;
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 11:32 PM	Believe me if I thought it was more than a light hearted joke I wouldn't have responded and would have simply reported it. As is I told you the same thing I was told the first and only time I mentioned Nazis. I think its a good rule and I support it 100% there are far better analogies to be made.
ZeronHitaro 11-13-06, 12:01 AM	Believe me if I thought it was more than a light hearted joke I wouldn't have responded and would have simply reported it. As is I told you the same thing I was told the first and only time I mentioned Nazis. I think its a good rule and I support it 100% there are far better analogies to be made. True, I suppose universal reference does = overused. :embarrass
Nom 11-13-06, 12:54 AM	This seems to have been overlooked so I will repost it and see if the proponents of Point Buy would like to take a swing at this one.About 2 hours ago. The problem isn't when you have different roles. The problem is when Michael Jordan's abilities (scores or otherwise) are so good that he can perform your role better than you as well as perform his own. Some people maintain that a similar problem exists between fighters and battle clerics or polymorphed wizards. It can also occur indirectly, where some PCs don't get to use their abilities because other PCs have already dealt with the problem, but that's more likely when comparing classes than ability scores.
Sim_antix 11-13-06, 12:58 AM	The point is that even with identical fighters one with high scores and one with significantly lower scores (a scenario that shouldn't come up with good players and DM) the second fighter is still filling the role of extra melee fighter and although he may not be as great of an all around fighter as the other guy without his extra attacks and hp the party would fail.
Vaelan 11-13-06, 01:31 AM	See thats the problem "crappy in comparison" if you got the scores you needed to make your character playable then it doesn't matter what anyone else rolls, play your character and have fun. People know that such petty jealousy is fruitless, but many people don't care. The fact is, there are a large number of people in this world who are not mature enough resist petty jealousy. It is nothing but metagaming to sit and stew over someones character having better stats then you. Metagaming is making in-character decisions based upon the fact that you're playing a game. Since sitting and stewing over someone's character having better stats than yours does not entail an in-character decision, I would have to disagree. Since, aside from the label of metagaming, this is nothing more than a reiteration of your previous point, one could come to the conclusion that the only purpose of this statement is to tie behavior you do not approve of to something that is widely seen as bad on the boards, regardless of, and, in this case, despite, the term being at all relevant. In real life thats how it works... This is not real life and very few people play the game to perfectly simulate it. One would imagine that the large, scaled quadrapeds that breathe fire and the men in pointy hats that cause spontaneous combustion by flinging around bat guano would tip you off to that. Since the original point of the thread has been addressed rather well, I'll go ahead and say something about point-buy and rolling. When my players insist that I tell them how to generate their ability scores, I use point-buy. If someone wants to roll, they can roll 2d12 and I assign them a set of scores from a pregenerated list that happens to conform to the point-buy that we are using. Point-buy alleviates petty jealousy, strengthens the balance between characters and encounters, and is a lot faster than rolling. My additional option of rolling and taking a set from a list addresses all of the arguments against point-buy that have any merit, along with quite a few that don't.
Sim_antix 11-13-06, 01:57 AM	It is metagame thinking in that your character has no idea what "ability scores" are and therefor your ability to play that character should not depend on your OOC knowledge of others ability scores in comparison to your own. Flaiming is against the CoC as is baiting and posts like this will be reported everytime.
babysamurai 11-13-06, 04:39 AM	Ooh, tension in the big house… Wow, I’ve been gone all weekend and it seems this thread I started has brought out some retarded emotions. …Too bad. As usual it seems "Nom" is one of the few people making any coherent sense, and without resorting to passive aggressive attitudes. This thread was not about "Point Buy rules and rolling sucks!" or vice versa. I was merely asking if anyone had tried 22 PB, and if so, what was it like? Now, I know someone said something along the lines of - It’s easy to figure out, and started throwing numbers out there – ridiculous, if some people think the only different experiences you can have in D&D is a difference in numbers/statistics, well than that’s sad. As for the other ridiculous analogy of Monopoly and D&D, once again Nom understands the difference between randomness "during" a game and starting on unequal footing. You don’t roll 1d6 or whatever when playing Magic: the Gathering to see who starts with more cards. You don’t roll randomly at the beginning of a game of Axis and Allies to see who starts with some extra countries or I.P.C’s. Also, PB characters do not all look the same. I have seen many 25 PB builds of various race/class combinations from different people and they’ve all come out differently. As I said near the beginning of this thread, one of the players in my current campaign rolled the equivalent of a 67 PB, well, after playing quite a few sessions we both felt it was only fair to let the other players in the party bring their characters up to a 67 PB. And it’s working wonderfully for determining EL’s and such. Once again, I’m not bashing rolling, hell, I’ve been playing since the 80’s and there was no such thing as PB and we were fine with it, but like all good things in life, it has advanced/evolved, so I now choose to go with PB, as I feel it enhances the game for "my" players and "myself". That is all.
Solaris 11-13-06, 05:31 AM	As for the other ridiculous analogy of Monopoly and D&D, once again Nom understands the difference between randomness "during" a game and starting on unequal footing. That is during the game. Character generation is part of the game, not something preparatory to it; you're playing the minute you roll the first die (or buy the first point). Rolling advocates would argue that this "unequal footing" stuff doesn't matter as much as the point-buy advocates argue that it does (and if it's really terribly unequal there've always been provisions for re-rolling). Basically, the two camps are coming from completely different places, with completely different values, and are only talking past each other. I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind on this, and neither should anyone else be. Let everyone play what they want, how they want, and if you don't like how someone plays then don't play with them. If people like point-buy, and this strange game that WotC is calling D&D (my opinion, and I've a right to it), then they're welcome to it and I hope they have fun. It doesn't affect my game any.
PiedmonSama 11-13-06, 05:42 AM	I use a 28-point buy, and even I acknowledge that's going to create characters on the stronger end of the spectrum. If you want to play a lower-powered, down-to-earth game where the players have to use caution and careful planning to succeed, a 22 point buy sounds fine. Teach your group they can survive without a 16!
babysamurai 11-13-06, 05:58 AM	That is during the game. Character generation is part of the game, not something preparatory to it; It is part of the game, but it most certainly is preparatory – are you saying pulling a pack of cards out of the box is already playing poker? Putting plastic sleeves on your Magic cards is playing the game? Whether you’re going PB or rolling for character generation, the actual game doesn’t really start until the first encounter/DM’s description etc. But I do agree with you on live and let play.
Stev Beren 11-13-06, 06:52 AM	That is during the game. Character generation is part of the game, not something preparatory to it; you're playing the minute you roll the first die (or buy the first point). Rolling advocates would argue that this "unequal footing" stuff doesn't matter as much as the point-buy advocates argue that it does (and if it's really terribly unequal there've always been provisions for re-rolling). Basically, the two camps are coming from completely different places, with completely different values, and are only talking past each other. I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind on this, and neither should anyone else be. Let everyone play what they want, how they want, and if you don't like how someone plays then don't play with them. If people like point-buy, and this strange game that WotC is calling D&D (my opinion, and I've a right to it), then they're welcome to it and I hope they have fun. It doesn't affect my game any. Other than creating unbalanced stat sets, tell me how rolling really adds to the game when it comes to ability scores? THe same people are going to distribute the stats in the same order, putting their highest in "x" their next highest in 'y' and their third highest in 'Z'. The stat distribution is gpoing to look similar, the main effect of rolling is that some characters will be handicapped to start play, and some have a mulligan. (Good or bad stats). The only way this DOESN'T happen is if you let them just keep rerolling until they get what thwey want. .in which case, really, why not just do a point buy?
justdmjeff 11-13-06, 11:16 AM	It is part of the game, but it most certainly is preparatory – are you saying pulling a pack of cards out of the box is already playing poker? Putting plastic sleeves on your Magic cards is playing the game? Whether you’re going PB or rolling for character generation, the actual game doesn’t really start until the first encounter/DM’s description etc. But I do agree with you on live and let play. It can be both preparatory and part of the game. If you have in your mind the character you want to play before the session begins or even if the DM requires you to have your character stats and background ready by the time the session begins, then point buy is probably the way to go. If, however, you are part of the D&D world that has actually has fun creating a character from scratch, then roll those dice. The group shows up for the first session for the campaign with a blank character sheet, a pencil, and their dice. Roll 4d6 drop the lowest. Let's create some characters. That is part of the game.
babysamurai 11-13-06, 11:38 AM	I'm not sure when "fair" became a bad word to gamers. Yeah, neither do I. Though I do remember a vulgar, petty player I used to game with (not for long) that used to mutter a quiet "Yes!" when another player would roll crap for his/her hit points. I do not understand this way of thinking. …Sick.
Solaris 11-13-06, 01:04 PM	It is part of the game, but it most certainly is preparatory – are you saying pulling a pack of cards out of the box is already playing poker? Putting plastic sleeves on your Magic cards is playing the game?That's ridiculous, and unhelpful. No more than pulling your books out of your bag is. But when you are generating your character you are engaged in processes which are governed by the rules of the game. You are playing the game. The outcomes of your ability score rolls are as much a part of the game as any of your future rolls. You may roll badly, and you may play again and roll differently. Perhaps this just shows how wide the gulf is between the two sides -- we can't even agree on something fundamental like when the game starts, so attempting communication is pretty pointless.
Solaris 11-13-06, 01:06 PM	I'm not sure when "fair" became a bad word to gamers.I haven't noticed it. Everyone I know would insist on the use of fair dice for rolling scores; fairness is essential for rolling to work.
Sim_antix 11-13-06, 01:55 PM	I haven't noticed it. Everyone I know would insist on the use of fair dice for rolling scores; fairness is essential for rolling to work. Also... what he said.
WizO_Cat 11-13-06, 11:05 PM	Ok, for those on both sides of the argument that have decided to make the posts personal, please keep in mind that Baiting is against the Code of Conduct and further offenses may result in disciplinary action. For those that have kept the discussion on the topic of the thread and not other guests, thank you. For the others, I suggest that you catch on quick.
Solaris 11-13-06, 11:09 PM	I can't find any, Cat, so hopefully any offenders know who they are. But you might want to make sure.
a_psh 11-13-06, 11:42 PM	If I were rolling for stats, I'd at least have a chance of being able to make this build. In 22 point buy such a build could not exist at all. ;)1 in 30,000-something isn't really a "chance" if you're only rolling up, say, two or three characters a year. What you're really making is an argument for having the GM just let you pick your stats arbitarily. Why not just go do that?
WizO_Cat 11-13-06, 11:49 PM	I can't find any, Cat, so hopefully any offenders know who they are. But you might want to make sure. Well a few posts have been deleted while others have been edited, so that may be the reason why. The main point is that: 1) If you've been making posts that have focused on another guest, then stop. 2) If you haven't been making posts that have focused on another guest, then don't start. Keep the posts on the topic of the thread and leave it at that.
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:04 AM	1 in 30,000-something isn't really a "chance" if you're only rolling up, say, two or three characters a year. What you're really making is an argument for having the GM just let you pick your stats arbitarily. Why not just go do that? If we're going to argue in terms of "odds of happening". Then tell me what the odds are of rolling 3 6's out of 4 6-sided dice? I'm pretty sure they're rediculous as well. One can say "odds of this are insane" but it still happens on a pretty regular basis. ;) And even though picking stats arbitarily would probably be the best solution, I still like the random factor. Some of the stats I listed don't have to be at those specific values as I just copied over an "ideal" stat bar. By rolling, sure there's always the chance that some might be lower than I want. But there's also the chance that some could be higher. If I get lower than ideal, I won't complain. But if I get higher than ideal, I'll be a more than content gamer.:D In short: I roll because it's fun. It's like gambling. You win some, you lose some. Yet Vegas never has any shortage of patrons.
Solaris 11-14-06, 01:09 AM	If we're going to argue in terms of "odds of happening". Then tell me what the odds are of rolling 3 6's out of 4 6-sided dice? I'm pretty sure they're rediculous as well.Only 1 in 61. 1 in 10 characters rolled with that method will have one or more 18s.
Sim_antix 11-14-06, 01:10 AM	What is it about random stats that threatens the game so much? If balance is your only attack point then it is easily countered with Good DMing. Everything from re-rolls to balancing encounters so that everyone gets a chance to shine will make sure that the party is fine even with random scores. So if it is more than balance then what is it?
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:12 AM	Only 1 in 61. 1 in 10 characters rolled with that method will have one or more 18s. Even so that makes the 3-4 games I've looked in on/participated in breaking the laws of probability. I'm not saying that there isn't any weight/truth in your arguement. *has a proper respect for math* However it seems that real life has an odd way of making statistics look like bunk. Kinda like how the weather man couldn't predict rain if a lightning bolt smited him in the arse.
Solaris 11-14-06, 01:15 AM	However it seems that real life has an odd way of making statistics look like bunk.More like die defects and people rolling less than randomly violate the assumptions of the statistics.
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:17 AM	More like die defects and people rolling less than randomly violate the assumptions of the statistics. *trying to make sure to be on the same page* I take it you're refering to how physical dice are not perfect and have minute flaws in their design that will inevitably effect rolls also added onto by the way different people roll their die in different ways?
Sim_antix 11-14-06, 01:19 AM	No he means people fudging their rolls
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:25 AM	No he means people fudging their rolls Ah. True that is a factor. I haven't seen a DM yet that had to worry about that though. I suppose it's because our city seems to have a pretty tight-nit gaming society. I've only heard of one fudge roller within a group of roughly 200 gamers (including the LARPers). He quickly was ejected from the group.
Solaris 11-14-06, 01:27 AM	Oh, not only fudging. Lazy rolling doesn't introduce sufficient randomness, and that's something a lot of people do without thinking about it. The statistics assume perfectly fair dice and perfect randomness. That's an idealized situation, but one that can be approximated well enough for gaming; it's why, for example, you have to bounce your dice off a wall at a craps table.
Sim_antix 11-14-06, 01:28 AM	I don't know what kind of player needs to cheat in a cooperative game but I know they aren't welcome at my table.
PineBark 11-14-06, 01:35 AM	What is it about random stats that threatens the game so much? If balance is your only attack point then it is easily countered with Good DMing. Everything from re-rolls to balancing encounters so that everyone gets a chance to shine will make sure that the party is fine even with random scores. So if it is more than balance then what is it? And you rolling stats peoples only argument is that point buy characters look all the same. That's easily countered by good playing. I've never encountered two equal character concepts in one game, and even if I did, I doubt the stats would still be the same. So unless you do it on purpose it won't be happening. The way I see it is: rolling increases the differences (and unfairness :P) between characters while point buy increases the chances of characters being similar. Neither of those things are good, but I still prefer point buy.
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:37 AM	Oh, not only fudging. Lazy rolling doesn't introduce sufficient randomness, and that's something a lot of people do without thinking about it. The statistics assume perfectly fair dice and perfect randomness. That's an idealized situation, but one that can be approximated well enough for gaming; it's why, for example, you have to bounce your dice off a wall at a craps table. Would using one of those tubes that comes with the Yatzee game create that approximated perfect randomness? That is if shaken enough.
Sim_antix 11-14-06, 01:43 AM	Thats not true. My argument (if you want to call it that) is only that Point Buy enforces the notion that everyone is created equally which impinges on my suspension of disbelief. People are different from each other and everyone has the same chances of being great at everything as they do of being not so great at everything. Rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest gives PCs an added boost to their chances of being really great at everything while also reducing the chances of being not so great at everything. The opponents of rolling claim that someone might be forced to play a character with no score over 13 but the fact is that even in the PHB it says that you get a re-roll if your scores are that low. So by RAW your DM must allow a re-roll in those extreme and extremely rare cases.
Solaris 11-14-06, 01:48 AM	Would using one of those tubes that comes with the Yatzee game create that approximated perfect randomness? That is if shaken enough. Rolling from a well-shaken cup would certainly help a lot, but you can get the same effect by shaking well between cupped hands, or making sure the dice bounce off of something, or various other means. Most people don't worry about it. I wouldn't, unless someone was getting a consistent skew in his results.
ZeronHitaro 11-14-06, 01:53 AM	Rolling from a well-shaken cup would certainly help a lot, but you can get the same effect by shaking well between cupped hands, or making sure the dice bounce off of something, or various other means. Most people don't worry about it. I wouldn't, unless someone was getting a consistent skew in his results. I think I may suggest the cup for my group. Not so much for stat rolls as they seems to have a very hard time rolling higher than 10 on d20 rolls. Especially during combat. >.<
PineBark 11-14-06, 01:54 AM	Ahh.. Well, the way I see it is even if you use the same point number on two characters, they still come out completely different, just like in real life. Sure, one guy might be able to do something better than the other, but maybe that guy has a high stat somewhere else where the other guy doesn't, which isn't noticable much in the career he pursuits. EDIT: This is in response to Sim antix.
Sim_antix 11-14-06, 02:01 AM	But they aren't completely different. They have the same average to their abilities. See maybe someone is good at one thing and someone else is good at two things whereas someone else entirely is good at everything. I know, I know "nobody wants to play second fiddle" except your not second fiddle just because the parties fighter has 18 16 18 14 14 14, you could be the parties rogue at 9 16 10 14 12 10 or the wizard at 7 14 10 16 10 10 or the cleric at 12 10 10 10 15 12 and each one of you would be important to the survival of the party. Sure the fighter looks impressive but without the other three to fill the party needs he would be just another notch on an Orcs belt.
PineBark 11-14-06, 02:12 AM	And in the end it all boils down to preferences :P I prefer my stats more "static" and not overshadowing other playres, you prefer your stats more "chaotic" and realistic. Neither of those IMO is better than the other, the arguments are weighted about equaly (well ok, I still think point buy is better, but from a neutral perspective, they're the same), but there's no way in hell I could prove that my way is better than yours to you and you couldn't prove anything to me either, since there is no proof, just preference. Same goes for everybody participating in this argument. So since there's exactly 0 point in this disscusion, I'm out :P
a_psh 11-14-06, 02:12 AM	Thats not true. My argument (if you want to call it that) is only that Point Buy enforces the notion that everyone is created equally which impinges on my suspension of disbelief.No, a point-buy system enforces the notion that THE PROTAGONISTS are created equal. And that's for a certain very specific kind of "equal" that, in D&D, assumes that 1 point of Strength is worth the same as 1 point of Intelligence and that being really super-good at one thing is better than being pretty darn good at two things. Not everyone in the world is the same level. And yet folks generally start the game with all the PCs at the same level. Does that break your suspension of disbelief, too? There's a lot more to a character than just the game token, anyway.
Solaris 11-14-06, 06:00 AM	..
WizO_Cat 11-14-06, 07:16 AM	Ok, this is the second warning: let's keep the posts on the subject matter of the thread and not other guests. Otherwise it is considered Baiting which is considered against the Code of Conduct. Thank you.
LCD2YOU 11-14-06, 08:20 AM	This is my opinion and my opinion only. If you agree with it, fine. If you don't, fine. 22 points for a character sucks. MAD Characters are totally gimped. Yes, I heard that the combo stacking makes up but it really doesn't. Point buy character all look the same. They almost always have even numbers for all their stats. Here is your 22 point character: 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 and 8 now mix them as needed in STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA Barb: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 or "let's be different" 15, 14, 14, 8, 10, 8 Bard: 12, 14, 10, 12, 8, 14 Cleric: 12, 12, 10, 8, 14, 14 or make 'em "smart" 12, 10, 10, 10, 14, 14 Druid: 12, 14, 10, 8, 14, 12 Fighter: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 or see the Barbarrian Monk: 12, 14, 10, 12, 14, 8 Paladin: 12, 10, 12, 8, 14, 14 or see cleric (and Paladins are supposed ot make deep decisions on the fly with Homer Simpson's IQ? What?) Ranger: 14, 14, 12, 10, 12, 8 or see fighter Rogue: 12, 14, 10, 14, 10, 8 Sorcerer: 12, 14, 12, 8, 10, 14 Wizard: 12, 14, 12, 14, 10, 8 Not the way you'd do it? Fine. I'll bet money that if you didn't look at this and were to create characters on 22 points, they'd look almost exactly like that. Yup, cookie cutter. Why don't we even get rid of different sexes? How 'bout those pesky species' bonuses and minuses? My Gods, someone could be, hush - hush, different, with better stats! Are we so damn politically correct that the "field has to be level"? Here's something for all you kids: The world, for both RL and in the game, is not fair and it is not level. Want to make it level? Want to play a game where everyone starts off the same? Try "Chutes and Ladders". By no means should one try Scrabble (someone may be smarter than you or get better tiles) Monopoly (the very game smacks of wealth inequality and the dice may send you to jail often all for being in the wrong place at the worng time for something you didn't do) What's next? Everyone share the same die roll to "to hit" and "saves" because someone may be lucky and another unlucky? It's the same logic. But it's your game, you do what you want. I don't have to like it just like you don't have to like what I do either. OBTW, my inability to roll what I need is lengendary. I gamed with a group of guys and we were all over 35 and they considered my dice cursed. A player and a DM both threw dice away after I touched them as they wouldn't roll anything above a 10 on a d20 or a 3 on a d6. Remember SFB? Can't roll well there either but my favorite ship, the 200 Point Hydran Lord Paladin was undefeated in 80 battles, though the Lyran X-Cruiser nearly destroyed me, but I got im first. Yeah, I'm the guy who rolls like crap. Still, my characters live and I get them into being a major party memeber. EDIT: Some of the stats were for 20 point builds.
babysamurai 11-14-06, 09:17 AM	This is my opinion and my opinion only. If you agree with it, fine. If you don't, fine. 22 points for a character sucks. MAD Characters are totally gimped. Yes, I heard that the combo stacking makes up but it really doesn't. Point buy character all look the same. They almost always have even numbers for all their stats. Well, you’re right about one thing – I don’t agree with any of this. …Fine?
LCD2YOU 11-14-06, 09:23 AM	Well, you’re right about one thing – I don’t agree with any of this. …Fine?Yup. But would you like to make 22 point characters? I'd love to see what they look like. As for MAD not being gimped, I'll show you how they are. Could you show me how they're not? To be fair, start at first level. See, having a different opinion is perfectly ok. Having some examples to back them up is when it becomes good.
babysamurai 11-14-06, 09:50 AM	Yup. But would you like to make 22 point characters? I'd love to see what they look like. As for MAD not being gimped, I'll show you how they are. Could you show me how they're not? To be fair, start at first level. See, having a different opinion is perfectly ok. Having some examples to back them up is when it becomes good. 22 Point Buy Paladin: Str 14 (6), Dex 10 (2), Con 12 (4), Int 8, Wis 12 (4), Cha 14 (6) Or: Str 14 (6), Dex 8, Con 12 (4), Int 8, Wis 14 (6), Cha 14 (6) Or: Str 14 (6), Dex 8, Con 14 (6), Int 8, Wis 14 (6), Cha 12 (4) Those are just a few…what’s wrong with that?
LCD2YOU 11-14-06, 10:15 AM	22 Point Buy Paladin: Str 14 (6), Dex 10 (2), Con 12 (4), Int 8, Wis 12 (4), Cha 14 (6) Or: Str 14 (6), Dex 8, Con 12 (4), Int 8, Wis 14 (6), Cha 14 (6) Or: Str 14 (6), Dex 8, Con 14 (6), Int 8, Wis 14 (6), Cha 12 (4) Those are just a few…what’s wrong with that?Except that he'll be hit often and hard, that he has Honer Simpson's IQ. Again he's supposed to make split life or death decisions that many good people on these boards will argue for weeks. Yes, I only put in 8 for INT too but metagaming the player's IQ to compensate is not at issue here. Then there's that pesky MAD thing and I had only so many points to put into 5 stats, 3 for combat (the Paladin BAB is that of the Ranger, Barb and Fighter) and 2 for spells and bonuses. In reality this is so not very different from what I posted: Mine: Str 12 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 14 Cha 14 Yours: Str 14 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 12 Cha 14 Offset: Str(2) Dex(0) Con(0) Int(0) Wis(2) Cha(0) Str 14 (2), Dex 8 (2), Con 12 (0), Int 8(0), Wis 14 (0), Cha 14 (0) Str 14 (2), Dex 8 (2), Con 14 (2), Int 8(0), Wis 14 (0), Cha 12 (2) Yes I see now. With two stats offset by two points for two different characters and one set of stats actually off by 2 for 4 different stats. I can see how that is different. And look, yes, all are even numbers. Yes, that was sarcasm. The characters above really aren't all that much different are they? Now, two Paladins rolling 16, 13, 12, 13, 10 and 16 for one and 18, 15, 15, 10, 12, 9 for the other, they are different. And look, they actually have odd numbers in them for stats. Sorry, but +/- 1 (12 to 14 is 13 +/- 1, 10 to 12 is +/- 1 and 8 to 10 is 9 +/- 1) really aren't different are they? What about the other classes? I did all of them. If you really and truly believe that they are not cookie cutters (I will still say +/- 1 from {some odd number here} is not different at all), then you should be able to come up with them, right?
LCD2YOU 11-14-06, 10:25 AM	For S&G: Using these rolls 16, 13, 12, 13, 10 and 16 for one and 18, 15, 15, 10, 12, 9 to create two very different Paladins: Str 12, Dex 16, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 16 Str 18, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 12 Those are different Paladins.
babysamurai 11-14-06, 10:34 AM	What about the other classes? I did all of them. If you really and truly believe that they are not cookie cutters (I will still say +/- 1 from {some odd number here} is not different at all), then you should be able to come up with them, right? I’m at work, so I don’t have the time – maybe later Plus, it wouldn’t matter anyway, as, from what I’ve seen; you seem to argue that MAD characters are worthless unless you have at least a 30 PB. And for some odd reason you seem to think that all PB character builds of the same class look the same. But at least you are actually posting valid opinions/examples, and I respect that – I just don’t agree. …But life would be pretty boring if we all agreed, don’t you think?
LCD2YOU 11-14-06, 10:40 AM	I’m at work, so I don’t have the time – maybe laterSo am I. I'm just on a conferrence call.Plus, it wouldn’t matter anyway, as, from what I’ve seen; you seem to argue that MAD characters are worthless unless you have at least a 30 PB.Not quite. At 32 points, I think things equal out for MAD/SAD Characters. At 22 points, I think a MAD character should get 25. In a 25 point game, they should get 28. At 28 points, 30. But at 32 they do equal out. No MAD character will have a stat higher than 14 though even at 32 points, the ones I design at least.And for some odd reason you seem to think that all PB character builds of the same class look the same.And I think that bears out when people actually sit down to build it and actually see what is what.But at least you are actually posting valid opinions/examples, and I respect that – I just don’t agree.Thanks. Oh and sorry about the sarcasm.…But life would be pretty boring if we all agreed, don’t you think?Yup.
Stev Beren 11-15-06, 04:20 PM	In my case, neither the Paladin nor the Ranger, and most of those "MAD" classes are not a problem with Point buy, because they are prestige classes instead of base classes. . but admittedly not everyone wants to take the time to do that./
Reversefigure4 11-15-06, 05:33 PM	Now, two Paladins rolling 16, 13, 12, 13, 10 and 16 for one and 18, 15, 15, 10, 12, 9 for the other, they are different. And look, they actually have odd numbers in them for stats. Of course, there's a reason for odd numbers in PB too - it makes it easier to change them. A 13 going to a 14 at 4th level is more fun than a 14 going to a 15. And as for your Paladin - let's say we have two Pallys in the party. Both use exactly the same PB, yours. Str 12 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 14 Cha 14 These Paladins are the same. Oh, except for the fact that they follow different gods. And that one uses a Greatsword vs the other's Shield and Morning Star. One likes bards, while the other is deathly afraid of squid. They may have the same stats, but that doesn't make them the same any more than two Wizards with their highest stat as INT are identical. The two Pallys may step on each other's toes a little (as any two of the same class tend to do), but it would be a LOT worse if one of them had that stat array, while the other had rolled up your 16, 13, 12, 13, 10 and 16. In that situation, we have one Paladin who is better at everything than the other. I fail to see how it's an improvement.
SokenzanMarauder 11-15-06, 05:47 PM	I never quite understood why people feel that if you're using PB that you 'have' to have even stats. Going off LCD2YOU's paladin example I came up with this: STR 11 DEX 12 CON 11 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 14 Equipment: Full-plate, Large Shield, and a Longsword Seems alright (ex. I'd play it), and at the next couple of levels a point in STR and CON will actually mean something. -Gene
dalamb 11-15-06, 05:55 PM	I am not here to talk anyone out of using point buy. If you like it then use it, but don't tell me or others that rolling is archaic and unbalancing just because you prefer to use point buy. Let everyone make up their own minds as to what constitutes fun for them in how their characters get their abilities.This is not the way I read your previous posts; you seemed to be ridiculing people who didn't like dice rolling. I thus reward you with a rewording of my former extreme position: rolling dice is demonstrably unfair compared to point buy, but, hey, if y'all and your entire gaming group find it fun, go for it.
Solaris 11-15-06, 06:16 PM	rolling dice is demonstrably unfair compared to point buy As long as we agree to disagree about the meaning of "fair". I say fair is everyone having the same chance, and you say fair is everyone having the same result. It's conceptual differences like this that make it very difficult for the two sides to communicate. How can we talk about this stuff when we can't even agree on things as fundamental as when gameplay starts, or what "fair" means?
Solaris 11-15-06, 06:52 PM	When you play the lottery you have the same chance of winning as everyone else. Is it unfair when someone else wins more money than you? That's rhetorical; keep reading. By the arguments used by many of the point-buy advocates, every game with a random element must be "unfair" simply because players may obtain disparate results despite their chances being equal. That's the case for Monopoly, Risk, Rackgammon, Yahtzee, Craps, the lottery, and Dungeons & Dragons. Of course they'll argue that random character generation makes D&D even less fair than the rest of those games because a disparity in initial results may make future chances unequal. But I'll argue that everyone had the same chance of getting those chances, so it is still fair. Even knowing that our definitions of "fair" differ, we're still left with the fact that our values differ. I value everyone starting off with the same chances and seeing what they can make of them despite, or by virtue of, the differences in their results. The point-buy advocates see that as a Bad Thing and want to prevent those differences. The two sides have very little basis for meaningful conversation on this topic. And I think this thread has demonstrated that point.
dalamb 11-15-06, 07:06 PM	As long as we agree to disagree about the meaning of "fair". I say fair is everyone having the same chance, and you say fair is everyone having the same result.I see "same chance" as being reasonable for in-game rolls like to-hit, skill checks, and so on -- there are a LOT of them, and they tend to even out, and the variation adds some interesting tensions. For the other meaning of "fair" I don't think "equal result" is quite right but can't see what to replace it with. So let's for the moment switch to "fun" (yes, I know it's not the same as "fair"): higher stat values, of about +2 I think, are sometimes regarded as worth an extra level. So, do you really want to play a game where we roll dice once at the start and I get to play a character who, through the whole campaign, is one level higher than yours?
Solaris 11-15-06, 07:09 PM	So let's for the moment switch to "fun" (yes, I know it's not the same as "fair"): higher stat values, of about +2 I think, are sometimes regarded as worth an extra level. So, do you really want to play a game where we roll dice once at the start and I get to play a character who, through the whole campaign, is one level higher than yours? Addressed in my last post. But to be more specific, no, I wouldn't mind. You being a level higher than me doesn't impact my ability to play my character well, or to have fun doing so. Particularly since we would likely have orthogonal roles in the party (me being a Rogue, say, and you being a Wizard). Even if we were both Wizards, I'm not sure it would be such a big deal. I'm not the best at anything I do in real life, so I can accept it if another character does something better than mine. Maybe next time I would get to be the best Wizard in the party (chances being fair). But being better than everyone else isn't one of my values.
dalamb 11-15-06, 07:11 PM	It is metagame thinking in that your character has no idea what "ability scores" are and therefor your ability to play that character should not depend on your OOC knowledge of others ability scores in comparison to your own.On the other hand, over time your fighter with (unknown to him) 12 STR gets to see his friend with (unknown to her) 14 STR hit more often and hit harder. You don't need to take this sort of thing to OOTS levels to realize that some of the "metagame" stuff we're "not supposed to know" really is observable to the characters.
Sim_antix 11-15-06, 07:37 PM	Just thought I would point out that Point Buy isn't even in the PHB. The only way to generate characters by RAW is 4d6 drop the lowest.
Stev Beren 11-15-06, 07:58 PM	Just thought I would point out that Point Buy isn't even in the PHB. The only way to generate characters by RAW is 4d6 drop the lowest. The DMG is not part of RAW? When did it get removed from the Core rules?
Sim_antix 11-15-06, 08:04 PM	That makes it a DM variant that he can implement. Default method is still 4d6 drop the lowest.
Stev Beren 11-15-06, 08:07 PM	That makes it a DM variant that he can implement. Default method is still 4d6 drop the lowest. Variants mean "Other ways you can do this" These 'Other ways you can do this" are listed in the DMG. which is part of RAW. THerefore, the other options ARE part of RAW. Period. One might be a "Default setting" but that does not make the other options any less a part of RAW.
Manyfist 11-15-06, 09:05 PM	Everything is optional. Even the races in PHB are optional, if you don't have them in your campaign, you can leave that out. Nothing is "Default" because DMG and PHB was realised at the same time. I don't know why people get so upset about NOT rolling, point buy is alot fairer to everyone. Its because dice can be any thing from 3-18. So that lucky dog who rolls high v. the poor chap who's highest ablity score is 14 who's going to enjoy the game? Unless the later of the two really enjoys support then that is the person who's not going to receive any of the fun.
hotoro 11-15-06, 09:12 PM	Not to raise up another issue all together but, when did this become an issue? The game is about a lot more than your ability scores. So one character cannot swing a sword as well as the next. Don't be the guy that swings swords, be the guy that opens locks. Not to mention the fact that characters that are not as powerful have more room for growth as characters IMO. Eventually Minmax is going to start wishing he had some heroic flaw like the "other guys" because playing the guy that does *whatever* the best and nothing more becomes boring after awhile. I say, everyone uses their own mechanic, none of them are perfect, none of them are totally flawed. Then once the smoke clears people focus more on fleshing out their stories and/or characters than "oh no he's better than me."
Manyfist 11-16-06, 02:05 AM	So one character cannot swing a sword as well as the next. Don't be the guy that swings swords, be the guy that opens locks. Thats like saying, oh you can't be as much as a Man of Bob here, be a female. (Bad Ex. Sorry) Yet why should you have to change your character? In point buy you can be a Typical Fighter (Str > Dex) or a Rogue ( Dex > Str) or a Mix (Str = Dex). You can flesh out your guy how ever you like them, having full knowledge that unless you want low scores you don't have to have them. Unlike dice rolling which you have almost equal chance of landing on 3 (1+1+1) as well as 18 (6+6+6). So while the lucky guy is rolling, you're stuck as the side kick. characters that are not as powerful have more room for growth as characters IMO. Not true. It really depends on the person playing that character. If you have a character who's not as powerful, IMO they have less room. I like to look at this way, Aquaman (Laughing Stock of all Superheros) his special ablity? Talking with fish. He has virtually 0 room for growth, because he's not in the action. It really just comes down to who's mind is creative. Minmax is going to start wishing he had some heroic flaw like the "other guys" because playing the guy that does *whatever* the best and nothing more becomes boring after awhile. The Minmax as well as everyone else has a Heroic Flaw (Which btw, kills.) yet the Minmax knows how to lessen that Flaw while building on his Strengths. Yet if he's a Fighter, Intelligence is left alone. If he's a Spell caster, Str is left alone. Which unlike a dice roller that depends on pure luck, and most the time can get better than point buy. You only have limited points, while you can shift them anywhere you want, you still have a limit. Unlike dice which, you can reroll it 100 times and get diffrent results. Conclusion: It comes down to the person that plays. If he's big on action he'll want to min/max. If the person is good RPing, he's going to want to Min/Max his skills/Ablity scores that help in social. Or he/she could choose not to Min/Max and chance it. Then again, if you roll your attributes, why not roll for your skills, and your race?
Sim_antix 11-16-06, 02:13 AM	Thats like saying, oh you can't be as much as a Man of Bob here, be a female. (Bad Ex. Sorry) Yet why should you have to change your character? In point buy you can be a Typical Fighter (Str > Dex) or a Rogue ( Dex > Str) or a Mix (Str = Dex). You can flesh out your guy how ever you like them, having full knowledge that unless you want low scores you don't have to have them. Unlike dice rolling which you have almost equal chance of landing on 3 (1+1+1) as well as 18 (6+6+6). So while the lucky guy is rolling, you're stuck as the side kick. The chances are far greater that you will roll three 6s and any other number than of you rolling four 1s. You will find that most characters end up with scores that look something like 17 15 14 12 10 8 or close to it. Yes some characters get two 17s and maybe even nothing under 12 but thats hardly as game breaking as some people claim. Not true. It really depends on the person playing that character. If you have a character who's not as powerful, IMO they have less room. I like to look at this way, Aquaman (Laughing Stock of all Superheros) his special ablity? Talking with fish. He has virtually 0 room for growth, because he's not in the action. It really just comes down to who's mind is creative. Aquaman choose bad feats and a poor class he had phenomanal stats.
Solaris 11-16-06, 02:20 AM	With the best 3 of 4d6 you're 21 times more likely to roll an 18 than a 3. With 3d6 the odds are equal.
Stev Beren 11-16-06, 07:49 AM	The chances are far greater that you will roll three 6s and any other number than of you rolling four 1s. You will find that most characters end up with scores that look something like 17 15 14 12 10 8 or close to it. Yes some characters get two 17s and maybe even nothing under 12 but thats hardly as game breaking as some people claim. Aquaman choose bad feats and a poor class he had phenomanal stats. And with Point buy, there is _no_ chance you will be saddled with scores under 8. Zero.
justdmjeff 11-16-06, 08:22 AM	Then again, if you roll your attributes, why not roll for your skills, and your race? I love when people bring up that argument. "You roll for abilities. Why not everything else?" Let me put this as simply as possible---Because it is not in the rules. Maybe part of the problem is so many Prestige Classes. A player gets it into his head that he wants to play a certain Prestige Class. Well, you can't roll then. You might not get the stats you need to play that class. With so many options, it would take years to play them all. So it would just be better to pick the stats you want and play the character you want. Go point buy. But there some of us that still see the character creation process as part of the game and enjoy letting the dice help decide what kind of character we will play. Go dice roll.
Stev Beren 11-16-06, 08:24 AM	I love when people bring up that argument. "You roll for abilities. Why not everything else?" Let me put this as simply as possible---Because it is not in the rules. Maybe part of the problem is so many Prestige Classes. A player gets it into his head that he want to play a certain Prestige Class. Well, you can't roll then. You might not get the stats you need to play that class. With so many options, it would take years to play them all. So it would just be better to pick the stats you want and play the character you want. Go point buy. But there some of us that still see the character creation process as part of the game and enjoy letting the dice help decide what kind of character we will play. Go dice roll. And Point buy is also part of the rules. And why is it a GOOD thing to randomly decide part of the character? Seriously? Especially since, most of the time, rolling stats might as well be an exercise in point buy because people keep discarding any sets they don't like and rolling until they get a set they DO. At least in my experience.
babysamurai 11-16-06, 08:38 AM	I see "same chance" as being reasonable for in-game rolls like to-hit, skill checks, and so on -- there are a LOT of them, and they tend to even out, and the variation adds some interesting tensions. Bolded by me. Ah, see; this is called logic – it will help you.
LCD2YOU 11-16-06, 08:40 AM	I never quite understood why people feel that if you're using PB that you 'have' to have even stats. Going off LCD2YOU's paladin example I came up with this: STR 11 DEX 12 CON 11 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 14 Equipment: Full-plate, Large Shield, and a Longsword Seems alright (ex. I'd play it), and at the next couple of levels a point in STR and CON will actually mean something. -Gene So you can start off with full plate at 1st level? Your DM is generous. I was under the impression that Paladins start off with 150gp. So, at 150 gp: Chain Shirt AC +4 - 100gp Large Steel Shield AC +2 - 20gp Longsword - 15gp Holy Symbol - 5gp Which leaves them with 10 whole gps. Now, if he gets max hp at first level, that's 10 HP His feats are Blindfight and Weapon focus, Longsword His Total AB is +2 and he does 1d8 or 4.5 points/average when he hits. So what we have is a "Front line party member" who is AC 17 HP 10 and hits AC 15 40% of the time. Compared to his fighter friend, same equipment and has the same feats plus Dodge, their AC is 19, HP 12, Total AB +4, Damage per hit of 1d8+2 or 6.5 points per round. The fighter will chew through three Orcs. The Paladin will be lucky to make it past one. A party that relies on the Paladin as described above as a fighter is in for a shock. Remember, we just came off of a thread where the DM was about to remove a Paladin's powers cause he didn't just jump in to a fight. Also, if you read what a Paladin is, a Warrior, they are incredibly nerfed and the example of the stats above shows what I mean. Your example is fine but you forget three things: Paladins don't start with heavy armor. Paladins are front line fighters Paladins have to survive to get the neat stuff. A Paladin like above would be useful for only one thing, soaking damage as the one above couldn't deal any if they tried.
babysamurai 11-16-06, 08:48 AM	I see it maybe as: Writers would like PB = Control the character Actors would like rolling = Play a concept or character that you don’t identify with for a theatrical challenge. I don’t know, I’m just throwing that out there.
justdmjeff 11-16-06, 08:50 AM	And Point buy is also part of the rules. And why is it a GOOD thing to randomly decide part of the character? Seriously? Especially since, most of the time, rolling stats might as well be an exercise in point buy because people keep discarding any sets they don't like and rolling until they get a set they DO. At least in my experience. Yes point buy is part of the rules. Sorry it took so long to respond to this post. I had to read and reread my post to make sure I did not say that point buy was against the rules. Nope I didn't. Whew that's a load off my mind. How stupid that would have been. And I'm sorry that you have played with people that just reroll until they get the stats they want. Bad people. They should use point buy then. I only reroll according to the rules. If no score is at least 14 or total modifiers are 0 or below. And as to why is it a good thing to randomly decide part of your character---because it is fun. Listen I've been to Vegas a couple of times. The odds are stacked in favor of the house. My chances of winning over the long haul are slim at best. I lost a few hundred bucks each time, but I had fun.
babysamurai 11-16-06, 09:02 AM	And as to why is it a good thing to randomly decide part of your character---because it is fun. …For you maybe… Back in the day (1st/2nd edition) I used to dread rolling for ability scores and hit points. For me, point buy and fixed hit points are a godsend.
Stev Beren 11-16-06, 09:09 AM	Yes point buy is part of the rules. Sorry it took so long to respond to this post. I had to read and reread my post to make sure I did not say that point buy was against the rules. Nope I didn't. Whew that's a load off my mind. How stupid that would have been. And I'm sorry that you have played with people that just reroll until they get the stats they want. Bad people. They should use point buy then. I only reroll according to the rules. If no score is at least 14 or total modifiers are 0 or below. And as to why is it a good thing to randomly decide part of your character---because it is fun. Listen I've been to Vegas a couple of times. The odds are stacked in favor of the house. My chances of winning over the long haul are slim at best. I lost a few hundred bucks each time, but I had fun. Never see Vegas as fun either. Putting abunch of money into a situation where you are at the whim of completely random chance is not my idea of 'fun'
LCD2YOU 11-16-06, 09:18 AM	Never see Vegas as fun either. Putting abunch of money into a situation where you are at the whim of completely random chance is not my idea of 'fun'But this isn't Vegas. In a way, everytime your character gets into combat they are putting their lives and money on the line and hoping the dice gods are merciful. One thing though, if everyone wants the characters to be "on the same footing", then why and I think I am showing where MAD characters at the same points up to 32 where they even out are completely nerfed, is there such opposition to giving them a few more points to really "level out the playing field"?
babysamurai 11-16-06, 09:22 AM	In a way, everytime your character gets into combat they are putting their lives and money on the line and hoping the dice gods are merciful. But of course tactics play a big part in PC survival as well.
LCD2YOU 11-16-06, 09:50 AM	But of course tactics play a big part in PC survival as well.And betting blindly is not a tactic either. There are good tactics even in gambling. Not hitting in Blackjack on a 16 when the dealer shows a 5 is one. Trust me when I say the best tactics in the world won't save you when your dice are rolling like crud and the other guy is not. In a game called "Trireme(sp?) and Gally", I manuevered my ships into position and I went into ramming speed. My 5 ships against his 5 ships. Combat was resovled using 3d6. My total was +11 and if we would had both rolled 10-11, I would have sunk all his ships that turn. But alas it was not to be. I couldn't roll above a 4 and he counldn't roll below a 17 and we were using the same dice. End game? My ships had their oars broken off and he sunk me two turns later. His ships weren't even hurt. So yeah, even great tactics lose to stupid plain luck every now and again.
babysamurai 11-16-06, 10:48 AM	So yeah, even great tactics lose to stupid plain luck every now and again. True, but I don’t want one bout of bad luck when creating my character to plague him/her for their entire career.
LCD2YOU 11-16-06, 11:18 AM	True, but I don’t want one bout of bad luck when creating my character to plague him/her for their entire career.But assigning points that also hamstring your character is just as bad. Thinking that you're leveling the playing field and nerfing specific classes is worse than bad luck. It is premeditated gimping. There are rules that cover characters that fall "below minimums" that are spelled out. Let's also be honest here: How many DMs are going to not let someone roll again if all their stats as 12s and the rest of the party is like a 38 point build? Nobody I know of.
babysamurai 11-16-06, 11:23 AM	But assigning points that also hamstring your character is just as bad. At least I have a choice/control.
LCD2YOU 11-16-06, 11:29 AM	At least I have a choice/control.That is the only reason I can see using Point Buy. In a way though 4d6 drop lowest and place as you want gives a very good choice/control as well. Still, it does not address the other issues of lack of fairness for MAD classes and low point buys.
Solaris 11-16-06, 01:12 PM	I see "same chance" as being reasonable for in-game rollsBolded by me. I don't know if you've ignored it, or accidentally missed it (you replied to the post which contained it but neglected to address that part of it, though that's all been deleted now), but one view is that character generation takes place after the game starts, and here's why: When you are generating your character you are engaged in processes which are governed by the rules of the game and which affect the rest of the game. Hence you are playing the game, and the outcomes of your ability score rolls are as much a part of the game as any of your future rolls. You may roll badly for one character's stats, and you may roll a better character the next time you play the game. I understand that your point of view is that character generation is not a part of the game, and is more akin to putting sleeves on magic cards, but that's not the only point of view. Repeatedly asserting such a view when there are justifiable other views doesn't advance the discussion. It's the same with the fair/unfair thing. After we've established that rolling might be either fair or unfair, depending on your point of view, there's not much point in contributing to the argument with "but it's unfair!". At that point, you're just talking past the other side. If we can't agree on when the game starts, or what is fair and what isn't, then what are we talking about? Hopefully, other points.
Solaris 11-16-06, 01:34 PM	I see it maybe as: Writers would like PB = Control the character Actors would like rolling = Play a concept or character that you don’t identify with for a theatrical challenge. I've never had much trouble identifying with my characters. But if you can't identify with a rolled character, and need point buy, then please use it and have fun. I'm pretty sure nobody's arguing that you should roll. I think we're simply defending rolling against a whole bunch of bogus assertions. While we're at it, though, here are some more suggestions for why people might like the methods they do: Maybe people who like point buy are believers in the Politically Correct dream that everyone is equal in ability and that steps should be taken to ensure that nobody ever feels inadequate (like how these days they're teaching kids to play Musical Chairs with as many chairs as kids), while people who like rolling accept the fact that people vary in ability. Or maybe people like point buy because they find it unthinkable that one of their friends should be even slightly cooler than they are, while people who like rolling aren't concerned with such pettiness. Note that I'm not saying these apply to you. I accept your reason that you like to have more control in character generation than dice allow.
Sim_antix 11-16-06, 01:46 PM	Putting a limit on how high a characters scores can be doesn't make everything fair and equal. What about the person that wants to play the monk or paladin? They are now severely gimped compared to someone who just wanted to play the fighter or other single ability class. Thats the problem is that some classes require you to have several higher scores whereas some you can get by with only one. By limiting their ability scores you are really just limiting their class choices.
justdmjeff 11-16-06, 02:00 PM	But this isn't Vegas. My point was not to compare Vegas to D&D as it relates to gaming. My point was to compare the two as it relates to fun. In fact it is more fun to roll dice at a D&D table than it is at a craps table. The odds are more in my favor. IT'S ABOUT THE FUN PEOPLE!!!
Solaris 11-16-06, 02:29 PM	IT'S ABOUT THE FUN PEOPLE!!! Some people have more fun when they have more control over the character generation process.
a_psh 11-16-06, 02:29 PM	This is an aside... My point was not to compare Vegas to D&D as it relates to gaming. My point was to compare the two as it relates to fun. In fact it is more fun to roll dice at a D&D table than it is at a craps table. The odds are more in my favor. IT'S ABOUT THE FUN PEOPLE!!!Gambling operates on a kind of "jackpot effect" (I don't know the more specific term for it). You never know what you're going to get, but sometimes it's good. Give a rat a button it can press to sometimes get food and it'll eat a lot more than a rat that can press a button to always get food. It's an addictive behavior. I wouldn't go ubiquitously branding it "fun," though. The jackpot effect applied to rolling for criticals or rolling for treasure or even rolling for character generation? Yeah, that can be fun and exciting. That same jackpot effect applied to the structure of actual play, wherein a given player is only engaged some of the time and people mostly just recollect the highlights of a game and grin and bear it when you get to the filler? That's bad. It's addictive and a lot of groups work that way, but it's a terrible way to actually have "fun". Stay away from that side of it.
Stev Beren 11-16-06, 03:38 PM	But this isn't Vegas. In a way, everytime your character gets into combat they are putting their lives and money on the line and hoping the dice gods are merciful. One thing though, if everyone wants the characters to be "on the same footing", then why and I think I am showing where MAD characters at the same points up to 32 where they even out are completely nerfed, is there such opposition to giving them a few more points to really "level out the playing field"? YOU brought up Vegas. . .
hotoro 11-16-06, 04:49 PM	Thats like saying, oh you can't be as much as a Man of Bob here, be a female. (Bad Ex. Sorry) Yet why should you have to change your character? In point buy you can be a Typical Fighter (Str > Dex) or a Rogue ( Dex > Str) or a Mix (Str = Dex). You can flesh out your guy how ever you like them, having full knowledge that unless you want low scores you don't have to have them. Unlike dice rolling which you have almost equal chance of landing on 3 (1+1+1) as well as 18 (6+6+6). So while the lucky guy is rolling, you're stuck as the side kick. Not true. It really depends on the person playing that character. If you have a character who's not as powerful, IMO they have less room. I like to look at this way, Aquaman (Laughing Stock of all Superheros) his special ablity? Talking with fish. He has virtually 0 room for growth, because he's not in the action. It really just comes down to who's mind is creative. The Minmax as well as everyone else has a Heroic Flaw (Which btw, kills.) yet the Minmax knows how to lessen that Flaw while building on his Strengths. Yet if he's a Fighter, Intelligence is left alone. If he's a Spell caster, Str is left alone. Which unlike a dice roller that depends on pure luck, and most the time can get better than point buy. You only have limited points, while you can shift them anywhere you want, you still have a limit. Unlike dice which, you can reroll it 100 times and get diffrent results. Conclusion: It comes down to the person that plays. If he's big on action he'll want to min/max. If the person is good RPing, he's going to want to Min/Max his skills/Ablity scores that help in social. Or he/she could choose not to Min/Max and chance it. Then again, if you roll your attributes, why not roll for your skills, and your race? Let's keep in mind here that I took a neutral stand on this issue. Personally, I have done both and prefer rolling. My brother on the other hand tends to prefer point buy. It really comes down to the players/DM and what they want to do. There is no inherent/obvious superiority to either. Both rolling and point buy have drawbacks.
dalamb 11-16-06, 07:58 PM	Ah, see; this is called logic – it will help you.In reference to my comment about "in game rolls" like to-hit -- I don't understand what you mean.
dalamb 11-16-06, 08:02 PM	If we can't agree on when the game starts, or what is fair and what isn't, then what are we talking about? Hopefully, other points.My original post tried to identify exactly which rolls I meant, and I don't really see it as depending on when the game starts. Yes, I used terminology that shows my bias, but the point I was trying to make didn't depend on the "when does the game start?" question. If you like, I was trying to distinguish between "kinds of rolls you make gazillions of time" and "kinds of rolls you make few of, at the start of (in your terms) the game (or before the game in my terms).
Solaris 11-16-06, 08:07 PM	That was a response to babysamurai's response to your post. It looked like he was just making another assertion that character generation is out of game even though he's just talking past others who have asserted that it's in game. We can keep saying "It's out of game", "no, it's in game", "it's out of game", "no, it's in game" over and over, but it's not very useful. I was just suggesting we move on to other points. Of course I may have misunderstood, too.
Vaelan 11-17-06, 02:01 AM	It is metagame thinking in that your character has no idea what "ability scores" are and therefor your ability to play that character should not depend on your OOC knowledge of others ability scores in comparison to your own. I'll say this again: metagaming is making in-character decisions based upon the fact that you're playing a game. If you disagree with the definition, you might want to make that a bit more clear. Since metagaming requires an in-character decision to be made and the decision you present is one made by the player and not the character, the claim that this is metagaming is indisputably wrong. Are we so damn politically correct that the "field has to be level"? No, it is purely a practical matter. The field being "level" has objective benefits that have been listed in this thread. The field being uneven does not.
Solaris 11-17-06, 02:28 AM	The field being "level" has objective benefits that have been listed in this thread. The field being uneven does not.That's why I always insist on the use of fair dice. And round and round we go. We get that you think rolling is unfair. We really, really do. But I wish that the point-buyers would please stop trying to elevate that opinion to the status of objective fact. It's not objectively true, or obvious, that rolling is unfair or uneven. Once again, since it seems to have been missed: When you play the lottery you have the same chance of winning as everyone else. Is it unfair when someone else wins more money than you? That's rhetorical; keep reading. By the arguments used by many of the point-buy advocates, every game with a random element must be "unfair" simply because players may obtain disparate results despite their chances being equal. That's the case for Monopoly, Risk, Rackgammon, Yahtzee, Craps, the lottery, and Dungeons & Dragons. Of course they'll argue that random character generation makes D&D even less fair than the rest of those games because a disparity in initial results may make future chances unequal. But I'll argue that everyone had the same chance of getting those chances, so it is still fair. You can keep going "but it's unfair!" and I can keep going "well, not according to this other point of view", but where does it get us? Surely we can each allow the other his opinion, even though we might think it's incorrect, simply because in this case we each have valid points, and any truth of the matter is relative to our differing values. I don't believe rolling is unfair, but I can understand why you believe it is. Can you really fail to understand why I believe rolling is fair? It seems to me that once we get past this hangup, all that's left is arguments like "I like having more control over character generation" vs. "I don't mind having less control and seeing what I can make out of the result". At that point, any rational people would shrug, say "hey, that's cool", and then just go on to play in their preferred ways.
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 07:34 AM	That's why I always insist on the use of fair dice. And round and round we go. We get that you think rolling is unfair. We really, really do. But I wish that the point-buyers would please stop trying to elevate that opinion to the status of objective fact. It's not objectively true, or obvious, that rolling is unfair or uneven. Once again, since it seems to have been missed: You can keep going "but it's unfair!" and I can keep going "well, not according to this other point of view", but where does it get us? Surely we can each allow the other his opinion, even though we might think it's incorrect, simply because in this case we each have valid points, and any truth of the matter is relative to our differing values. I don't believe rolling is unfair, but I can understand why you believe it is. Can you really fail to understand why I believe rolling is fair? It seems to me that once we get past this hangup, all that's left is arguments like "I like having more control over character generation" vs. "I don't mind having less control and seeing what I can make out of the result". At that point, any rational people would shrug, say "hey, that's cool", and then just go on to play in their preferred ways. YOu can say you don't mind it in your games, and that's cool. . . But it IS an objective fact that rolling leads to an uneven playing feild as opposed to a point buy. Each character at least theoretically starts from a different base, and some are disadvantaged compared to others. THAT part is not a matter of opinion.
LCD2YOU 11-17-06, 07:51 AM	FirsstYOU brought up Vegas. . .Nope, that was No, it is purely a practical matter. The field being "level" has objective benefits that have been listed in this thread. The field being uneven does not.And the praticallity that MAD classes are nerfed if bought with the same points? Also, as I have posted on this thread, the characters created all look like cookie cutters of each other. PB is not as fair and unbiased as you may want to believe. As Solaris has pointed out many times, the fairness in dice rolling comes from everyone using dice and rolling in the same way.
LCD2YOU 11-17-06, 07:54 AM	YOu can say you don't mind it in your games, and that's cool. . . But it IS an objective fact that rolling leads to an uneven playing feild as opposed to a point buy. Each character at least theoretically starts from a different base, and some are disadvantaged compared to others. THAT part is not a matter of opinion.Again Steve, it is not an objective fact as Point Buy is in itself unbalanced. Let me get this straight: Everything must be the same? So racial point mods, are they ok? Is rolling badly in the middle of the game ok or should that be leveled out as well? Are MAD characters compensated in PB as they are gimped? But again, don't call PB fair and puts everyone on an even playing field. It doesn't but everyone looks the same.
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 08:11 AM	THeoretically, yes, classes are 'balanced'. And the point is. .it puts them on a much MORE level playing feild than rolling does. The rolling adds to any existing imbalance. Point buy. .doesn't. If you like having larger imbalances, I suppose that is up to you. I don't like starting out some characters with a golden horseshoe and others behind the eight ball ribght off the ability score rolls. And that IS indisputable. Rolling will create a larger imbalance of the 'playign feild' than a point - buy. As for your other examples. .apples and oranges. Racial modifiers are nto random. The player can choose which race he is, and knows thereafter exactly what modifier he gets. The player can CHOOSE what class he gets and knows what benefits and penalties come with it. And a roll in mid - game is an ientity unto itself, and does not severely effect prior or subsequent rolls. SO its not even close to comparable. . And, having played or GMed for many myself under point buy, I don't buy the "MAD characters are gimped by point buy" theory. TO me, it doesn't seem to play out in practice.
LCD2YOU 11-17-06, 08:42 AM	THeoretically, yes, classes are 'balanced'. And the point is. .it puts them on a much MORE level playing feild than rolling does.And I disagree. I'll let my players use Point Buy, 35 points, or rolling. Funny thing is players wanting MAAD The rolling adds to any existing imbalance. Point buy. .doesn't.With MAD characters, as I keep showing, it does.If you like having larger imbalances, I suppose that is up to you.And who says it leads to larger imbalances? Is it always so? Are DMs who allow rolling then in your eyes saying to players, "Tough luck, use what you roll"? Gee, nobody on this thread who is advocating rolling has ever said that. So where are you getting this? Seems to me you have a lot of preconceptions that you will not let go of.I don't like starting out some characters with a golden horseshoe and others behind the eight ball ribght off the ability score rolls.And all DMs who use rolling do that? Is that what you are saying?And that IS indisputable.It is disputable. That you keep on saying it doesn't make it so..Rolling will create a larger imbalance of the 'playign feild' than a point - buy.Which is easily correctable and in fact does have self-correcting measures built into the RAW. So how is that not as level again?As for your other examples. .apples and oranges. Racial modifiers are nto random. The player can choose which race he is, and knows thereafter exactly what modifier he gets.If you say so. But in rolling and placing stats where the player wants, isn't that a "known issue too" for the player?The player can CHOOSE what class he gets and knows what benefits and penalties come with it. And a roll in mid - game is an ientity unto itself, and does not severely effect prior or subsequent rolls. SO its not even close to comparable.Again, if you say so. But the very fact that afterwards that everyone has different rolls for combat shows the game is not level.And, having played or GMed for many myself under point buy, I don't buy the "MAD characters are gimped by point buy" theory. TO me, it doesn't seem to play out in practice.Which as it is your game and I've never seen it is completely un-falsifiable. Here's the thing, I can claim that as a DM, in practice, "the (your hyperbole) huge difference" between characters has never been an issue. See? Both can play the "From what I've seen game". Back it up with something substantial. You don't think so but I can show where it is the case, if the DM was being fair and spreading out the attacks to all front line party members. As the DM, you can have the other creatures attack the guy who can handle it and keep them off of the weaker guy. And doing stuff like that is different how than just having them roll up new stats? Also, Point Buy Characters are cookie cutter. I would like to see what you make for the various classes at 22 points. I'll bet they won't look any different than what I did. Another thing. What you keep on saying are facts on your side aren't. Unless you are going to put up something besides your opinion (I've been doing that with MAD characters and cookie cutter characters). Are you going to do the same? Opinions are fine, but they are just that, opinions.
Sim_antix 11-17-06, 10:02 AM	I'll say this again: metagaming is making in-character decisions based upon the fact that you're playing a game. If you disagree with the definition, you might want to make that a bit more clear. Since metagaming requires an in-character decision to be made and the decision you present is one made by the player and not the character, the claim that this is metagaming is indisputably wrong. Metagaming is anytime that you use OOC knowledge to affect IC anything. Your character doesn't know that someone has three 18s compared to your one 16. They might be aware that the other character is better than them in some areas, but how would that stop them from doing what they do and trying to do it well? Yes I know, you as the player know these things so they are going to pout because someone else has a better character than them, but players like that obviously don't understand the cooperative nature of d&d and would not be welcome at my table.
a_psh 11-17-06, 01:42 PM	Here's an alternative way to look at the "Point buy gimps MAD classes" argument: MAD classes are gimped, period. I mean, look at 'em... The DMG's point-buy system is definitely biased towards helping MAD a little bit (it lets you get a 16 and a 14 for the same cost as a single 18 ), and yet truly MAD characters still pretty much suck across the board. The most powerful builds for a monk or paladin involve taking a few levels to get one of the early benefits, and then slapping those onto a SAD-type of class so you get additional juice from your primary attribute. Given that DMG-style point-buy is already giving them a handout and the only argument for roll-based methods advantaging MAD classes is that sometimes you can roll obscenely high stats (which would make for a powerful SAD-class character, too), "Point-buy gimps MAD classes" isn't a reasonable conclusion. They just suck by themselves. * - Another potential issue, however, is that the threshold is so high. You don't really see this benefit until characters are seriously thinking about picking 16s and 18s. In a game where your SAD characters put a 15 in their main stat, that's only worth two 12s -- a far less appealing bargain than the 18 vs. 16+14 one given above.
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 01:48 PM	To put it bluntly, if you allow enough rerolling that the problem I mention isn't a problem, then you might as well substitute a sufficient point buy and be done with it. If you are using the rolling because its random, and then let them get rid of rolls that make4 there be large differences, then really, what is the point of rolling. If you roll enough that rolling makes a difference, then it WILL make a difference and cause an imbalance between stat sets. If you allow enough picking and choosing that there isn't an imbalance, then you really might as well just point buy and choose an appropri9ate number. Again; Why is randomness a superiour thing in creating characters? It is, still, whatever you say, indisputable that dice rolling for stats - unless you jigger the randomness out of it so much that you may as well not be rolling, will create stat set imbalances> Its a statistical fact. Deny it as you will. Perhaps the statistical imbalances don't bother you; fine. And rolled characters are also cookie cutters. I bet if you looked at the stat placement: Where high score 'X' is used, where next highest score 'Y' is used, and on down the line, the distribution woudl be the same. The only difference between rolled and bought is the size of the cookies, not their placement on the plate. Again. Tell me how random statistical distribution does not creat imbalanced stat sets, when it indiputably leads to stat sets of different combined totals - and if it doesn't, then there really isn't any point to rolling anyway. And as for weather the DM's who allow rolling are doing that. .its UNAVOIDABLE to do that, unless you just let people reroll until there are no differences. .and then there is no point to rolling.
Solaris 11-17-06, 02:06 PM	if you allow enough rerolling that the problem I mention isn't a problem, then you might as well substitute a sufficient point buy and be done with it. Agreed. At some point, usually well before you start choosing the best set out of 18 sets rolled with the best 3 of 5d6, re-rolling 1s and 2s, you might as well stop kidding yourself that you're doing anything random, and just pick your scores. Again. Tell me how random statistical distribution does not creat imbalanced stat setsIt can create unequal stat sets. But that's still fair. Balance follows from the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Limit_Theorem).
a_psh 11-17-06, 02:44 PM	And rolled characters are also cookie cutters. I bet if you looked at the stat placement: Where high score 'X' is used, where next highest score 'Y' is used, and on down the line, the distribution woudl be the same. The only difference between rolled and bought is the size of the cookies, not their placement on the plate.Do you know why? Because ability scores are really a secondary statistic. Class defines what you can actually do (how well you fight, what gear you use, what magic you can cast, what skills you have, what special mundane or magical abilities you possess). Ability scores mostly just define how good you are at what you do. So, it's really not surprising that, regardless of how you generate stats, for any given "what you do", there is an optimal or near-optimal way to allocate ability scores. Thus, the cookie cutter. Happens with every character creation method. Unavoidable as long as you combine the desire to create effective characters with the existing game mechanics.
LCD2YOU 11-17-06, 03:19 PM	Looks like it comes down to what one prefers. Despite claims to the contrary, neither is better nor more fair than the other. Each has their problems. So, unless anyone objects neither is better it is just some like it more random while others prefer more ordered starts. Neither random nor ordered indicate which is better, only that they have their own quirks. I'm sure that this won't satisfy a few people. That's fine. More than a few answers from a few people didn't satisfy me either.
thought_riot 11-17-06, 03:30 PM	Okay. Here's my opinion on this whole Point Buy vs. Dice Rolling thing. Both ways are valid ways of making characters. Neither is bad. It's completely a matter of preference, and neither one is FACTUALLY BETTER. I personally prefer dice rolling, although I'm not opposed to point buy. I don't think characters need to start on an exactly even footing for things to work. I prefer a sense of realism, and it's not that realistic that four people who, overall, are exactly above the average of their race, come together and decide to adventure. Four people with varied abilities, some more above-average, POSSIBLY, coming together and adventuring is more realistic. Dice rolling, despite what the hardcore anti-dice people want you to believe, doesn't 100% of the time create wildly unbalanced parties. In fact, out of 5 years of playing primarily dice rolling campaigns, I've never had such a thing.
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 04:09 PM	Okay. Here's my opinion on this whole Point Buy vs. Dice Rolling thing. Both ways are valid ways of making characters. Neither is bad. It's completely a matter of preference, and neither one is FACTUALLY BETTER. I personally prefer dice rolling, although I'm not opposed to point buy. I don't think characters need to start on an exactly even footing for things to work. I prefer a sense of realism, and it's not that realistic that four people who, overall, are exactly above the average of their race, come together and decide to adventure. Four people with varied abilities, some more above-average, POSSIBLY, coming together and adventuring is more realistic. Dice rolling, despite what the hardcore anti-dice people want you to believe, doesn't 100% of the time create wildly unbalanced parties. In fact, out of 5 years of playing primarily dice rolling campaigns, I've never had such a thing. It will, however, create wildly unbalanced parties, at least as far as ability scores are concerned, nearly 100% of the time more than a point buy will. Really, if you don't mind the imbalances, then have fun with it - just don't try to deny they exist. Frankly, I really don't see how rolling the scores provides a less cookie cuttered ability score distribution that a point buy, as with EITHER they will be distributed approximately the same way. As far as the 'MAD' classes, its not even plausibly a problem in my campaigns any more anyway, as those classes have now become prestige classes anyhow(for mine). I just like it that way better.
Sim_antix 11-17-06, 04:24 PM	PrC's that nobody will ever take, because nobody will ever have high enough stats in the abilities that they would need to make taking those classes worthwhile...
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 04:42 PM	PrC's that nobody will ever take, because nobody will ever have high enough stats in the abilities that they would need to make taking those classes worthwhile... AH, yes. THe "Charachters are worthless unless they have bonuses or something above a 16 in their primary stat/stats' argument.
Sim_antix 11-17-06, 04:45 PM	No but it is pretty pointless to make a Monk with a Wis mod of 0 or a Paladin with a Cha mod of 0, which btw it will cost you 2 points just to get 0s
thought_riot 11-17-06, 04:52 PM	It will, however, create wildly unbalanced parties, at least as far as ability scores are concerned, nearly 100% of the time more than a point buy will. Really, if you don't mind the imbalances, then have fun with it - just don't try to deny they exist. The chances of an unbalanced party are more likely with dice, obviously. Don't try to act like the chances of a wildly unbalanced party are 100% with dice though. As far as the 'MAD' classes, its not even plausibly a problem in my campaigns any more anyway, as those classes have now become prestige classes anyhow(for mine). I just like it that way better. Key words: YOUR CAMPAIGN>
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 05:17 PM	The chances of an unbalanced party are more likely with dice, obviously. Don't try to act like the chances of a wildly unbalanced party are 100% with dice though. Key words: YOUR CAMPAIGN> I didn't say 100%. I said '100% MORE' As there is no chance of getting an unintended unbalanced ability set when the players are buying it themselves, using the same amount of 'money' with the stats 'costing' the same amount, and there IS a chance in rolling, it is infinitely more likely than zero. THus the statement. Really, if you wouldn't insist on trying to pretend that rolling is just as balanced, and just said that the fact that it is unbalanced is what you like about it, I really would have not much more argument with you. However, you are trying to argue that rolling creates stat sets that are just as balanced WHILE claiming at the same time that the fact that some people are better than others in their stats while rolling is a feature rather than a bug - don't you see the inherant inconsistancy here?
LCD2YOU 11-17-06, 06:22 PM	AH, yes. THe "Charachters are worthless unless they have bonuses or something above a 16 in their primary stat/stats' argument.I've never said that. Steve, your arguments have gone to strawmen. Has anyone ever said anything about 16 in primary stats? No. And yes, you are making it sound as if the people who are dice rollers are having games where the highest guy has 18s in all but one token stat (it's only a 17 there) and the guys who have four 12s and two 10s. Either that or people will roll 24 times and end up with 5d6, re-roll 1s and take highest 3. I don't think the "dice rolling crowd" is aying that.
Stev Beren 11-17-06, 06:27 PM	I've never said that. Steve, your arguments have gone to strawmen. Has anyone ever said anything about 16 in primary stats? No. And yes, you are making it sound as if the people who are dice rollers are having games where the highest guy has 18s in all but one token stat (it's only a 17 there) and the guys who have four 12s and two 10s. Either that or people will roll 24 times and end up with 5d6, re-roll 1s and take highest 3. I don't think the "dice rolling crowd" is aying that. Then tell me what you DID mean by "Not being able to get a high enough score in the primary stat to make it worth playing", when it is easy enough under a point buy to get a fifteen. Also. .not that it says STEV not 'Steve' Its a character name. And no, I never said that you have all 18's and a 17 and all 12's and tens. I consider much lesser differences than that, however, 'unbalanced'. THe only strawman being set up here is the one YOU are setting up by mischarachterizing what I am saying.
dalamb 11-19-06, 07:46 PM	But the very fact that afterwards that everyone has different rolls for combat shows the game is not level.Are you really saying there is no significant difference between a small set of (ability generation) rolls (e.g. 4x6) that affect the character for the rest of the game, and a large number of (combat, skill check, ...) rolls made over a long period of time? Yes, they're both random -- no question. But there are so many of the latter that they 'even out', whereas there are so few of the former that they give room for a lot of difference -- which difference is important to you, after all, because of the reference to MAD characters. I've come around to accepting that rolling for attributes has its plusses for some groups. But I can't imagine deciding there's no real difference in 'level-ness' between the two kinds of rolls.
babysamurai 11-20-06, 05:57 AM	Also, Point Buy Characters are cookie cutter. Once again - opinion. You keep saying that you’ve showed how MAD characters are gimped by PB. You haven’t shown anything, but once again, your opinion. I have seen 3 different people make a 25 PB fighter and their scores were all differently allocated/values/arrays. I have also seen 25 PB monks that rock the free world. Basically, just generate your characters ability scores the way your DM has laid out…whatever that may be, and have fun
LCD2YOU 11-20-06, 09:05 AM	Once again - opinion.Great. But I'm actually backing mine up. Remember this:Point buy character all look the same. They almost always have even numbers for all their stats. Here is your 22 point character: 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 and 8 now mix them as needed in STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA Barb: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 or "let's be different" 15, 14, 14, 8, 10, 8 Bard: 12, 14, 10, 12, 8, 14 Cleric: 12, 12, 10, 8, 14, 14 or make 'em "smart" 12, 10, 10, 10, 14, 14 Druid: 12, 14, 10, 8, 14, 12 Fighter: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 or see the Barbarrian Monk: 12, 14, 10, 12, 14, 8 Paladin: 12, 10, 12, 8, 14, 14 or see cleric (and Paladins are supposed ot make deep decisions on the fly with Homer Simpson's IQ? What?) Ranger: 14, 14, 12, 10, 12, 8 or see fighter Rogue: 12, 14, 10, 14, 10, 8 Sorcerer: 12, 14, 12, 8, 10, 14 Wizard: 12, 14, 12, 14, 10, 8and I repeatedly ask for different characters. Yes, I saw a_psh and his "It all depends on how you play them" but that doesn't change that they all look the same. Do you wish to refute what I posted with something than equating my examples that show they all look the same with only your opinion. The thing is I keep on offering up examples, concrete examples. You keep on telling me that it is my opinion but you haven't shown why. So, I have examples, you have your opinion. Get the difference straight.You keep saying that you’ve showed how MAD characters are gimped by PB. You haven’t shown anything, but once again, your opinion.No I've showed that again here:So you can start off with full plate at 1st level? Your DM is generous. I was under the impression that Paladins start off with 150gp. So, at 150 gp: Chain Shirt AC +4 - 100gp Large Steel Shield AC +2 - 20gp Longsword - 15gp Holy Symbol - 5gp Which leaves them with 10 whole gps. Now, if he gets max hp at first level, that's 10 HP His feats are Blindfight and Weapon focus, Longsword His Total AB is +2 and he does 1d8 or 4.5 points/average when he hits. So what we have is a "Front line party member" who is AC 17 HP 10 and hits AC 15 40% of the time. Compared to his fighter friend, same equipment and has the same feats plus Dodge, their AC is 19, HP 12, Total AB +4, Damage per hit of 1d8+2 or 6.5 points per round. The fighter will chew through three Orcs. The Paladin will be lucky to make it past one. A party that relies on the Paladin as described above as a fighter is in for a shock. Remember, we just came off of a thread where the DM was about to remove a Paladin's powers cause he didn't just jump in to a fight. Also, if you read what a Paladin is, a Warrior, they are incredibly nerfed and the example of the stats above shows what I mean. Your example is fine but you forget three things: Paladins don't start with heavy armor. Paladins are front line fighters Paladins have to survive to get the neat stuff. A Paladin like above would be useful for only one thing, soaking damage as the one above couldn't deal any if they tried.OBTW, I am getting really tired posting and reposting for people who say "where?" but yet like you never actually produce anything save quick hand waiving as you don't want to actually try and refute what someone actually posts.I have seen 3 different people make a 25 PB fighter and their scores were all differently allocated/values/arrays.Really? Where? And I thought this was about 22 point buy characters.I have also seen 25 PB monks that rock the free world.I've seen games where the DMs bend over backwards too. What's your point?Basically, just generate your characters ability scores the way your DM has laid out…whatever that may be, and have funBut you're incredibly rude and condensending. My turn. You haven't presented anything but rhetoric. When someone actually takes the time to show where they get that, you wave your hand and don't actually do anything to refute it, only waive your hands. So babysamurai, your turn to actually make characters not cookie cutter off of 22 points. If you can't just say so. I don't think you can. Oh sure, you'll make fighters that should be rogues, Wizards that should be fighters and such but that's it. So are you going to give something other than your worn out opinion? Yes I am upset because you don't actually post anything of substance and then mock when someone does. So babysamurai, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
LCD2YOU 11-20-06, 09:13 AM	Then tell me what you DID mean by "Not being able to get a high enough score in the primary stat to make it worth playing", when it is easy enough under a point buy to get a fifteen. Also. .not that it says STEV not 'Steve'From a person who gets what others say wrong all the time, a small mistake (I thought your name is Steve, my bad) gets you upset? If that is the case, myself and several others should be yelling our heads off here. A stat that is not high enough in a primary attribute would be like a 10 in Int for a Wizard. OBTW, what else did I say where you cut 'n pasted that from? I can't find it right now so I want to see the whole paragraph. See Stev, taking things out of context by cutting 'n pasting snippets is poor form.Its a character name.Ok.And no, I never said that you have all 18's and a 17 and all 12's and tens. I consider much lesser differences than that, however, 'unbalanced'.You're the own that kept bringing it up.THe only strawman being set up here is the one YOU are setting up by mischarachterizing what I am saying.No. See, I use everything you say. Can you say the same about what you do to others?
babysamurai 11-20-06, 09:56 AM	Yes I am upset because you don't actually post anything of substance and then mock when someone does. So babysamurai, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. You didn’t post anything of substance. I didn’t mock you. But the whole CAPS LOCK thing "is" terrifying.
LCD2YOU 11-20-06, 09:58 AM	Stev and babysamurai, Don't concentrate on me. Concentrate on your arguement and present examples. I will respond now only to your examples. You had your say in trying to tar and feather me and I replied in kind. So, present what you want to say, USE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH when you post what someone said (generally - there are times you don't need to) and present examples. As far as two cookie cutter characters acting different although they have the exact same stats, just a reminder, I've seen characters who are "inferior in points and stats" still lead the party because of good roll playing. So using RP as an example on how two characters are different applies to rolled PCs as well.
LCD2YOU 11-20-06, 10:04 AM	You didn’t post anything of substance.Of course not to you. You can't refute it can you so you'll mock it.I didn’t mock you.When you so blithely wave your hand and just say "You posted nothing of substance" when I took the time to repost what I have said that you have never actually done anything to refute just say a curt, short sentence, yes that is mocking.But the whole CAPS LOCK thing "is" terrifying.It's called stressing points I want to make. I see you're incapable of actually doing something other than hand waiving. No? Prove me wrong then. I don't mind being wrong but I do mind people who just say something without backing it up with what they think or why the example breaks down.
babysamurai 11-20-06, 10:25 AM	No? Prove me wrong then. I don't mind being wrong but I do mind people who just say something without backing it up with what they think or why the example breaks down. Come on, I think you’re getting to hang up on all of this. I think we can work this out. I’ll tell you what; I’m going to send you a nice fruit basket. P.S. 22 Point Buy Fighters: 1.) Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 2.) Str 14, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8 3.) Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8 4.) Str 18, Dex 8, Con 14, int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 …Etc.
Vaelan 11-20-06, 11:32 AM	Can you really fail to understand why I believe rolling is fair? It doesn't matter if you believe rolling to be fair. The point is that people can believe that rolling is unfair and that addressing such a belief in any meaningful capacity destroys the entire purpose of rolling. The issues with point-buy's supposed unfairness, on the other hand, have already been addressed and did not involve undermining the very basis of point-buy. Another problem with rolling is that it can cause an imbalance between the party and the challenges they face. I haven't seen anybody address this yet, and the claim that it all balances out based on probability isn't going to help the DM that finds the CR guidelines useless thanks to the party's exceptionally high stats. I understand what your point of view. I think it fails to address several issues and is not the best solution for the majority of people, but I do understand it. Metagaming is anytime that you use OOC knowledge to affect IC anything. This is a basic issue of definition. My definition is supported by the 3.5 DMG. Yours is supported by... nothing? I am going to have to insist that you are incorrect, even though this is largely irrelevant. Your character doesn't know that someone has three 18s compared to your one 16. They might be aware that the other character is better than them in some areas, but how would that stop them from doing what they do and trying to do it well? Psychological problems stemming from a severely damaged ego. There are quite a number of them, and any of them could quite possibly stop a person from functioning normally. Yes I know, you as the player know these things so they are going to pout because someone else has a better character than them, but players like that obviously don't understand the cooperative nature of d&d and would not be welcome at my table. Some people have to suffer through such immaturity. Rolling provokes this immature jealousy whereas point-buy doesn't, which is my entire point. Also, Point Buy Characters are cookie cutter. I would like to see what you make for the various classes at 22 points. I'll bet they won't look any different than what I did. I'd like to note before I start that these are based off of characters that I have actually played or off of what I would do differently based upon the mistakes I have made in the past. Barb: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 Barbarian: 14, 12, 14, 14, 8, 8 It isn't a huge difference when you just look at the numbers, but when you look at what the results, the differences are significant. This Barbarian has slightly lower AC than most, but qualifies for Combat Expertise and the line of feats that lead off of it. It also has two more skill points than your Barbarian, and the Barbarian actually has a pretty good class skill list. This Barbarian has options besides "hit it hard" and brings greater non-combat contributions to the party. This character was for a campaign early in my days of playing 3.5 that was going to be strictly Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids, so Improved Trip and Improved Disarm were great and there weren't a whole lot of other choices beyond Power Attack/Cleave. Bard: 12, 14, 10, 12, 8, 14 Bard: 16, 8, 10, 13, 8, 13 I stood behind the party's Fighter and tripped/disarmed people with my whip. I actually took the whole trip/disarm routine as far as a Fighter can normally take it thanks to my feats and spells. Definitely not your typical Bard. Cleric: 12, 12, 10, 8, 14, 14 Cleric: 14, 10, 14, 8, 14, 10 Less focus on Turn Undead because feats that begin with the word Divine aren't allowed in one of my games. Mine actually had 10 Intelligence, though. I wasted the extra skill point on Heal. Druid: 12, 14, 10, 8, 14, 12 Druid: 8, 8, 16, 10, 16, 8 Also known as the "We're starting at level 6 or higher" Druid array. My Druid's Dexterity was actually a 5 but his Strength was a bit higher, both of which proved irrelevant when I turned into a big lion and mauled things Fighter: 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 Fighter: 14, 13, 14, 13, 8, 8 This is for the Fighter that actually wants to take worthwhile feats. The second 13 could be in Wisdom for Combat Focus feats or Intelligence for the Combat Expertise line. I played a point-buy Fighter and boosted Strength and Constitution at the expense of all else. It wasn't ideal. Monk: 12, 14, 10, 12, 14, 8 Monk: 14, 14, 12, 8, 14, 8 My Half-Orc Monk had 16 Constitution, but otherwise this is fairly accurate. Two skill points per level went to Move Silently and Hide. Paladin: 12, 10, 12, 8, 14, 14 or see cleric (and Paladins are supposed ot make deep decisions on the fly with Homer Simpson's IQ? What?) 14 Wisdom is wasted on a Paladin. Their Will save is fine without the bonus and their Wisdom limiting access to spells is not going to be an issue considering how much time you have to boost it. The only time I played a Paladin was when my group made the jump to third edition, so my stats were actually quite high. This is one of the few classes I actually don't have experience with in conjunction with abysmal ability scores. Ranger: 14, 14, 12, 10, 12, 8 or see fighter A Ranger that uses crossbows (along with the Crossbow Sniper feat from PHB2) can go with 10 Strength and 16 Dexterity. I played an urban ranger that did this. A Ranger that uses Two-Weapon Fighting can max out bonus damage and let their Dexterity suffer. They're still going to be tougher than a Rogue. I did this with a Ranger in a campaign that would be pretty much exclusively orcs. My damage was fairly impressive. Rogue: 12, 14, 10, 14, 10, 8 Ranged Rogue: 10, 16, 10, 14, 10, 8 Melee Rogue: 16, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8. Social Rogue: 8, 12, 10, 12, 14, 12. I have the most experience with Rogues. In third edition, Rogues are so versatile that your stats are largely irrelevant. I suppose you do need a DM who can run something other than dungeon crawls to make some possible Rogues viable, though. Sorcerer: 12, 14, 12, 8, 10, 14 Sorcerer: 8, 12, 14, 10, 8, 16 A Sorcerer with 8 Intelligence can't cover the skills people expect of an arcane spellcaster. Dumping Strength for Charisma is a no-brainer. My Sorcerer had one skill point per level due to the shockingly-uncommon 1-1-1-2 roll that I just couldn't bear to put anywhere else. I put it into Bluff and often disappointed my party. Wizard: 12, 14, 12, 14, 10, 8 Wizard: 10, 12, 14, 16, 8, 8 Enough Strength to carry your spellbook and a good enough Intelligence that you'll have the advantage when it comes to saving throws. My Wizard had better Wisdom and Charisma, but worse Dexterity. All of these are about as different as you'll get with rolled, distributed stats and reflect characters I have actually played.
Sim_antix 11-20-06, 01:00 PM	This is a basic issue of definition. My definition is supported by the 3.5 DMG. Yours is supported by... nothing? I am going to have to insist that you are incorrect, even though this is largely irrelevant. Read your DMG v3.5 more thouroughly because that is where I got my definition of metagaming. Metagaming refers to thinking of the game through the eyes of the player in order to make decisions for the character. Thats it. Nothing more nothing less. If your thinking of ability scores as numbers then you are thinking as a player and not your character. Your character would only know that someone was stronger, not a quantifiable amount of how much stronger they were. Psychological problems stemming from a severely damaged ego. There are quite a number of them, and any of them could quite possibly stop a person from functioning normally. A fine trait for any hero to possess... Some people have to suffer through such immaturity. Rolling provokes this immature jealousy whereas point-buy doesn't, which is my entire point. So Point Buy is for those too immature to handle rolling? See thats why we don't play with anyone immature enough to not be able to handle playing a simple game without issues of jealousy and pouting.
LCD2YOU 11-20-06, 01:33 PM	Come on, I think you’re getting to hang up on all of this. I think we can work this out. I’ll tell you what; I’m going to send you a nice fruit basket. P.S. 22 Point Buy Fighters: 1.) Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 2.) Str 14, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8 3.) Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8 4.) Str 18, Dex 8, Con 14, int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 …Etc.Maybe. But this is a good start. Now, my "cookie cutter" fighter is 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 #1 is +/- 1 from 15 on Str and +/- from 9 on Int and Wis #2 is +/- 1 from 13 on Dex, only 1 point on Con but Int is different. #3 is exactly the same. #4 is different. I'm not sure that is anyone I'd wish to play, but that's just me. So far so good. I think though that you made 3 characters very close to the cookie cutter example however. What about the rest of the classes?
Solaris 11-20-06, 01:35 PM	It doesn't matter if you believe rolling to be fair.It matters as much as your belief that it isn't, or your belief that point-buy is. The point is that people can believe that rolling is unfair and that addressing such a belief in any meaningful capacity destroys the entire purpose of rolling.The point is that people can also believe it's fair, and by the quite reasonable definition I've given of "fair" the purpose of rolling remains. If point-buy seems more fair to you, by your criteria, than rolling, then use point-buy. If rolling is fair to me, by my criteria, then I'll roll. The issues with point-buy's supposed unfairness, on the other hand, have already been addressed and did not involve undermining the very basis of point-buy.Well, I've never said a word about that. I don't like point buy, but I don't believe it to be unfair. Another problem with rolling is that it can cause an imbalance between the party and the challenges they face. I haven't seen anybody address this yet, and the claim that it all balances out based on probability isn't going to help the DM that finds the CR guidelines useless thanks to the party's exceptionally high stats.As a DM I'm pretty adaptable, and can tailor my adventures on the fly to best suit the party. I do understand that not everyone is capable of this, and that's why they came up with the whole CR thing -- to try to mechanize the process -- so I'm not going to disparage you if that's a difficulty you have. For my part, however, this is a non-issue. I understand what your point of view. I think it fails to address several issues and is not the best solution for the majority of people, but I do understand it.I'd question "majority", but that's neither here nor there. If you understand my point, then hopefully we can drop the whole "rolling is unfair" argument.
Solaris 11-20-06, 01:41 PM	Some people have to suffer through such immaturity. Rolling provokes this immature jealousy whereas point-buy doesn't, which is my entire point.I agree. I said something to that effect earlier: Or maybe people like point buy because they find it unthinkable that one of their friends should be even slightly cooler than they are, while people who like rolling aren't concerned with such pettiness. I don't view rolling as the problem, though. I view immaturity as the problem. If this kind of immaturity is something you have to deal with, and a band-aid like point-buy helps salvage your game, then that's great.
Sim_antix 11-20-06, 01:44 PM	I don't view rolling as the problem, though. I view immaturity as the problem. If this kind of immaturity is something you have to deal with, and a band-aid like point-buy helps salvage your game, then that's great. I view it more as a case of if my friends can't handle rolling then I need to find some more mature friends.
Stev Beren 11-20-06, 05:01 PM	Stev and babysamurai, Don't concentrate on me. Concentrate on your arguement and present examples. I will respond now only to your examples. You had your say in trying to tar and feather me and I replied in kind. So, present what you want to say, USE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH when you post what someone said (generally - there are times you don't need to) and present examples. As far as two cookie cutter characters acting different although they have the exact same stats, just a reminder, I've seen characters who are "inferior in points and stats" still lead the party because of good roll playing. So using RP as an example on how two characters are different applies to rolled PCs as well. ANd I'm not responding to you until you either provide an example of a "Tarring and feathering" or retract your statement. Responding to your arguments is not taring and feathering, and failing to agree with you is not either, however much you seem to think it is. It is, I repeat, a statistical fact that random dice rolling will lead to sets of stats that are more imbalanced with respect to eachother than point buy. Its not even an arguable point, its just plain statistics. I'm sorry if you feel like repeatedly making that point is tarring and feathering you, but its a true point. Now perhaps, as you said, you feel that that imbalance is a feature rather than a bug; Fine, you do; I don't. Have fun with it. But don't try to argue that stat sets of a party that is rolled will on average be as balanced with respect to eachother as the statlines of a party made via point buy.
Solaris 11-20-06, 06:52 PM	But don't try to argue that stat sets of a party that is rolled will on average [Emphasis mine -Solaris] be as balanced with respect to eachother as the statlines of a party made via point buy. But "on average" is precisely when they will be balanced. Statistics, again.
Stev Beren 11-20-06, 07:50 PM	But "on average" is precisely when they will be balanced. Statistics, again. Save that none of the INDIVIDUALS in the group will be playing the AVERAGE of all of the rolled ability scores. They will be playign their own non average set. It, again, is not level or balanced between individuals. It frankly, for that point, does not matter the slightest if the average rolled statline is the same - the differences BETWEEN individual statlines will be greated. THat is still, a statistical fact to which the point you just made is utterly irrelevant. .
Solaris 11-20-06, 07:58 PM	I was responding to what you said. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant to say. On average, you'll get balance. You're not guaranteed equality on any given outcomes. The process is still fair. This argument is getting funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. "Not everyone gets the same scores!" "They don't need to in order for it to still be considered fair." "But not everyone gets the same scores!" "They don't need to in order for it to still be considered fair." "But not everyone gets the same scores *SQUAWK*!" "Here, have a cracker." Why are we still harping on this point?
Nom 11-20-06, 08:22 PM	Terminology nitpicks: technical vs common usage: But "on average" is precisely when they will be balanced. Statistics, again.I think Stev is using "average" to mean "statistically likely" rather than "equalling the expected value". It is statistically expected that a group of four PCs will not all have equivalent (insert metric here) ability score distributions. It is impossible that all 6 scores of every PC will equal the expected value; in fact, it's impossible that even one score will equal the expected value, since that is 12.24 and thus impossible on a single integral sample. Similarly, "fair" in common parlance does not mean "unbiased", but "having the perception of equal treatment". It is legitimate to argue "of course the system is fair, everyone determined their ongoing systematic bias through a fair system". But the fact that the bias is ongoing and systematic means that it will be perceived as unfair, regardless of how fair the method used to generate it. In truth, the same thing can happen with point buy. If a player makes some bad decisions, they can find themselves "stuck" with a mechanically ineffective character. The important difference is that a consistent, calibrated mechanic exists for reworking a "point buy" character - you just reassign points. Thus, DM and player can work together to "fix" the build. In contrast, the only way to "fix" a rolled PC is to arbitrarily modify ability scores or to reroll them - either method introduces a systematic positive skew into the generation system; rebuilding a rolled PC is not zero-sum.
Solaris 11-20-06, 08:26 PM	I'm pretty sure I've indicated already that I understand that point of view. Furthermore, members of the point-buy crowd have claimed that they understand the rolling crowd's point of view. Given that we all understand each other, and simply disagree as to the relative merits of having or not having differences in total stat values (and whether or not it's fair), why are we still harping on this point? I maintain that "fair" means "equal opportunity". The other side maintains that "fair" means "equal results". According to their definition, rolling isn't fair. According to our definition, rolling is fair. Going back and forth with "It's not fair from our point of view!" "But it is fair according to our point of view." "But it's not fair from our point of view!" is insane. What exactly are the point-buyers hoping to accomplish with that?
dalamb 11-20-06, 09:10 PM	Maybe somebody already explained this, but... Some posters seem to have said that rolling is better for MAD characters. Does this mean that rolling gives you some chance of having multiple high attributes? If so, does that mean if you want to play a MAD character you keep rolling until you get acceptable stats, or does it mean you try for a MAD character and, if it doesn't work out, try some other type of character with the stats you rolled? or does it mean something else?
Solaris 11-20-06, 09:18 PM	Some posters seem to have said that rolling is better for MAD characters. Does this mean that rolling gives you some chance of having multiple high attributes? If so, does that mean if you want to play a MAD character you keep rolling until you get acceptable stats, or does it mean you try for a MAD character and, if it doesn't work out, try some other type of character with the stats you rolled? I can only imagine it means the latter. Most rollers would agree that if you're just going to re-roll until you get what you want you might as well just assign scores (or use point-buy). Would anyone like to clue me as to what a MAD character is? I've been unable to figure it out from context.
Stev Beren 11-20-06, 09:22 PM	I'm pretty sure I've indicated already that I understand that point of view. Furthermore, members of the point-buy crowd have claimed that they understand the rolling crowd's point of view. Given that we all understand each other, and simply disagree as to the relative merits of having or not having differences in total stat values (and whether or not it's fair), why are we still harping on this point? I maintain that "fair" means "equal opportunity". The other side maintains that "fair" means "equal results". According to their definition, rolling isn't fair. According to our definition, rolling is fair. Going back and forth with "It's not fair from our point of view!" "But it is fair according to our point of view." "But it's not fair from our point of view!" is insane. What exactly are the point-buyers hoping to accomplish with that? No> Fair means "Equal playign field" THe difference is, you seem to believe the playing feild starts BEFORE the abilities are rolled and I think of it as AFTER they are selected. ANd again, you seem to think I am arguing about wether somethign is 'Fair" WHich I have stated MULTIPLE times that I am not doing, yet you keep coming back to it. I am specifically arguing the ONE point of wether or not pecifically Rolling is "Balanced' compared to a point buy. YOu are trying to respond to that by doing two things: Claiming that it is, in fact, NOT unbalanced between sets AND arguing that I am claiming somethign is 'unfair' when I repeatedly say that fairness isn't even part of my argument. On the issue of why I prefer point buy on a broader scale. .. As a GM I want, yes, the players to either start out on an equal basis _Or have any inequalities be a result of choices they made_. Which abilities to buy on point buy> WHich race they chose to be. WHich class they chose to be. WHat feats they wanted to take. Where they wanted to put their skill points. All of those are CHOICES made by the player. Rolled ability scores are choices made by a bouncing chunk of plastic. And yes, I know next you will mention that you roll in combat; but the rolls in combat do not systematically define and effect every single roll made thereafter from there until the end of the game.
Stev Beren 11-20-06, 09:23 PM	I can only imagine it means the latter. Most rollers would agree that if you're just going to re-roll until you get what you want you might as well just assign scores (or use point-buy). Would anyone like to clue me as to what a MAD character is? I've been unable to figure it out from context. MAD means "Multiple Ability Dependant. THe claim is that they require high scores in multiple abilities in order to be effective. I will withhold my personal opinion on the issue, but there it is in a nutshell.
Solaris 11-20-06, 09:29 PM	No> Fair means "Equal playign field" THe difference is, you seem to believe the playing feild starts BEFORE the abilities are rolled and I think of it as AFTER they are selected.I've pointed this out before. We can only agree to disagree. So why are we still harping on that point? I am specifically arguing the ONE point of wether or not pecifically Rolling is "Balanced' compared to a point buy.And as I've said before, the balance comes in the long run over several characters. I've also agreed that any two given rolled characters might not be equal. So why are we still harping on this point? As a GM I want, yes, the players to either start out on an equal basis _Or have any inequalities be a result of choices they made_.As I and others have said before, the two sides have different values. You want that, and I want the players to start simply from equal chances and see what they can make with what they get. So why are we still harping on this point? We have different definitions of fair. We have different ideas of when the game starts. We have different values by which we assess our two systems. So W. T. F. are we doing? Every time I say my piece on it, I just get back "but it's unfair!" or "but it's unbalanced!" or whatever. We've addressed all that. We've done it over and over. So why are you still harping on those points?
Stev Beren 11-20-06, 09:34 PM	I've pointed this out before. We can only agree to disagree. So why are we still harping on that point? And as I've said before, the balance comes in the long run over several characters. I've also agreed that any two given rolled characters might not be equal. So why are we still harping on this point? As I and others have said before, the two sides have different values. You want that, and I want the players to start simply from equal chances and see what they can make with what they get. So why are we still harping on this point? We have different definitions of fair. We have different ideas of when the game starts. We have different values by which we asses our two systems. So W. T. F. are we doing? Every time I say my piece on it, I just get back "but it's unfair!" or "but it's unbalanced!" or whatever. We've addressed all that. We've done it over and over. So why are you still harping on those points? One could ask you the exact same question. HOwever, for a long time you were arguing a statistical impossibility, or at least an extreme statistical improbability, or at the least seemed to be. . That, in fact, the ability sets would NOT be unbalanced between the different players. You seem to have either stopped that or clarified your position, so I have little real argument with you other than that I just wished to place the entire basis of my line of thought on the table.
Solaris 11-20-06, 09:38 PM	One could ask you the exact same question.Except that I've only ever been stating my position in response to statements from your side. Your side says it's unfair or unbalanced or whatever. So I reply well, here's a point of view from which it is fair, or balanced, or whatever. At which point your side continues "but it's not fair, or balanced, or whatever!". So I reply well, I've just explained a point of view... etc. It's your side that keeps pushing the point. I'm just answering it since, as long as you guys keep pushing it, you must be needing answers. HOwever, for a long time you were arguing a statistical impossibility, or at least an extreme statistical improbability, or at the least seemed to be. . That, in fact, the ability sets would NOT be unbalanced between the different players.Never said any such thing; I've always allowed as how the ability scores will have disparities. Perhaps someone else did, or you misinterpreted my position that it's fair between the different players because they started out with equal odds, and balanced in the long run. I'm very well aware of how the math works here.
LCD2YOU 11-21-06, 09:25 AM	What Solaris said. You think that rolling is unfair. I think that point buy is equally unfair and I showed why. I become frustrated when I hear that point buy is fair and rolling is not when I don't think that is the case at all. Some may feel Point buy is easier on the DM and some players, but I'm not one of them. So, there are many who like point buy. I'm not a fan but I will allow a player to choose a 32 point buy while his fellows roll if they want. I like rolling and believe it to be fair for the same reasons as Solaris.
babysamurai 11-21-06, 11:06 AM	What Solaris said. You think that rolling is unfair. I think that point buy is equally unfair and I showed why. I become frustrated when I hear that point buy is fair and rolling is not when I don't think that is the case at all. Some may feel Point buy is easier on the DM and some players, but I'm not one of them. So, there are many who like point buy. I'm not a fan but I will allow a player to choose a 32 point buy while his fellows roll if they want. I like rolling and believe it to be fair for the same reasons as Solaris. Please let it lie. I didn’t start this thread so it could degenerate into this ridiculous and vulgar point buy vs. rolling nonsense. I think we’re all done here – next?
Sim_antix 11-21-06, 01:26 PM	Please let it lie. I didn’t start this thread so it could degenerate into this ridiculous and vulgar point buy vs. rolling nonsense. I think we’re all done here – next? Sorry but when the option of rolling was presented everyone attacked our positions, we have the right to defend them, besides which those in favor of point buy have already admitted that its easier to use point buy when your players are jealou/immature.
a_psh 11-21-06, 01:42 PM	Sorry but when the option of rolling was presented everyone attacked our positions, we have the right to defend them, besides which those in favor of point buy have already admitted that its easier to use point buy when your players are jealou/immature.First post asked "Has anyone tried 22 point buy? How did it work out for you?" The option of rolling was pretty irrelevant here. Especially after the OP had made clear that he didn't care for that option after the first time it was suggested. Defending an argument nobody asked for in the first place is kinda a waste of time.
a_psh 11-21-06, 01:45 PM	Here's my answer to the actual thread: I have not tried 22 point-buy. I think it could work. My most immediate concern is that stat-boosting items become more and more important as your inate attributes dip lower and lower. As such, I'd be just a tiny bit concerned about the game kinda sucking at high levels, where the kind of phenomenon that you see in some computer games and at epic levels develops: characters' swag becoming more important than their stats. Watch out for that if you're gonna go high-level with this. Still, I think it'll work just fine as long as you stay away from the extreme levels (15+).
Sim_antix 11-21-06, 01:53 PM	First post asked "Has anyone tried 22 point buy? How did it work out for you?" The option of rolling was pretty irrelevant here. Especially after the OP had made clear that he didn't care for that option after the first time it was suggested. Defending an argument nobody asked for in the first place is kinda a waste of time. Whether they asked for the argument or not the fact remains that babysamurai said "I guess 25 Point Buy is the only option" to which I added "Not true you can always roll 4d6 drop the lowest" and without fail every supporter of point buy jumped down my throat and the throat of anyone else who defended rolling vs point buy. It was a simple statement that Point Buy is not the only way to go...
Solaris 11-21-06, 02:00 PM	Actually, it started with this: Don't you feel like some of what makes D&D is that you roll dice, even in the very beginning making a character? Now don't get me wrong I've done the point buy thing plenty o' times I just think it lacks a certain 'fun' factor. Not when stat rolling is the single most unbalanced factor in the game, no. Might as well say you should roll randomly for race and class while you're at it. And for what feat you take, and what spells you know. etc. For me, it was Some of the "I like rolling" folks seem to think the fun they have with the randomness justifies the complete, total, absolutely unjustifiable unfairness of one player rolling high and another rolling low. Basically, the thread turned into a lot of rolling-bashing, and we responded.
LCD2YOU 11-21-06, 02:45 PM	My personal favorite was how fair point buy was and how rolling was not. Unless I see where someone is claiming how "fair" Point Buy is and other personal opinions presented as fact denegrating how someone else plays, I'm done with the thread.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 06:36 PM	Except that I've only ever been stating my position in response to statements from your side. Your side says it's unfair or unbalanced or whatever. So I reply well, here's a point of view from which it is fair, or balanced, or whatever. At which point your side continues "but it's not fair, or balanced, or whatever!". So I reply well, I've just explained a point of view... etc. It's your side that keeps pushing the point. I'm just answering it since, as long as you guys keep pushing it, you must be needing answers. Never said any such thing; I've always allowed as how the ability scores will have disparities. Perhaps someone else did, or you misinterpreted my position that it's fair between the different players because they started out with equal odds, and balanced in the long run. I'm very well aware of how the math works here. Again, long or short run, the differences ARE the differences. how can they ba;lance out?> THey will exist from level one to level 29. ANd 22 point buy is a bit on the low side. 25 or 28 works.
Solaris 11-21-06, 07:03 PM	Again, long or short run, the differences ARE the differences. how can they ba;lance out? Because I might have lower scores than you with this character, and you might have lower scores than me the next, and in the long run neither of us will have been any better, on the whole, than the other. Once again (since the vast number of times I've already said it evidently still isn't enough): Yes there will be differences between general pairs of characters. I don't give a flying whether there are such differences. You do, so you use point buy. I'm content to let the differences average out over time. There's my balance. You want balance with every outcome. I get balance in the long run. The concept is not that difficult.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 07:36 PM	Because I might have lower scores than you with this character, and you might have lower scores than me the next, and in the long run neither of us will have been any better, on the whole, than the other. Once again (since the vast number of times I've already said it evidently still isn't enough): Yes there will be differences between general pairs of characters. I don't give a flying whether there are such differences. You do, so you use point buy. I'm content to let the differences average out over time. There's my balance. You want balance with every outcome. I get balance in the long run. The concept is not that difficult. HOW do the differences average out over time? YOu have yet to explain that. . . . HOW over the long run doe the gap bnetween the sets of stats disappear?
Solaris 11-21-06, 07:39 PM	HOW do the differences average out over time? YOu have yet to explain that. . . . HOW over the long run doe the gap bnetween the sets of stats disappear? Are you kidding me? You didn't actually read what I said, did you? I didn't claim that they do. In fact, I explicitly said that they won't: "Yes there will be differences between general pairs of characters". Remember when I said "Because I might have lower scores than you with this character, and you might have lower scores than me the next, and in the long run neither of us will have been any better, on the whole, than the other"? Read it as many times as you have to. Then look up the "law of large numbers" online and learn what it says. Maybe then I can stop repeating myself.
Sim_antix 11-21-06, 07:46 PM	They average out because given enough different characters everyone will have had around the same number of good rolls vs not so good ones....
a_psh 11-21-06, 07:51 PM	The law of large numbers would apply a lot better if the standard model of D&D play wasn't a long-running campaign. It might take years to go through even a dozen characters. Even factoring in simultaneous play in multiple weekly campaign, the gamers in my circle of friends have all created three characters or fewer per year. I certainly don't see that as being very "large" at all, as far as the law of large numbers is concerned.
Solaris 11-21-06, 07:51 PM	Tends to work well enough anyway.
Nom 11-21-06, 08:02 PM	If you're resampling often enough within a single campaign for the law of large numbers to apply, one of two things will happen: (1) Your fatality rate is so high that your ability scores are irrelevant; you're going to die in a session or two regardless. (2) A filtering effect will occur. "Weaker" characters will die more often than "stronger" characters, and thus the mean score set will be pushed upwards.
Solaris 11-21-06, 08:06 PM	If you're resampling often enough within a single campaign for the law of large numbers to apply... I just rolled four lots of three characters with the 3d6 method -- one year's worth of characters for a party of four in a_psh's game. The average scores for the four players were 11.0, 10.55, 9.83, and 10.27, where the expected mean is 10.5. The difference between the luckiest player and the unluckiest character is a mere 1.17 points. That's reasonable balance for a year. In two years it'll be even better. If I'd used the best 3 of 4d6, which has less spread about its mean, the results would have likely been even more balanced.
Sim_antix 11-21-06, 08:15 PM	If you game every other week thats 26 sessions. Assuming that they go through 4 characters a year thats hardly every other session. Solaris brings up a good point though, there usually isn't a huge difference between the high and low and there is even less discrepancy when you use 4d6 drop the lowest.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 08:52 PM	Are you kidding me? You didn't actually read what I said, did you? I didn't claim that they do. In fact, I explicitly said that they won't: "Yes there will be differences between general pairs of characters". Remember when I said "Because I might have lower scores than you with this character, and you might have lower scores than me the next, and in the long run neither of us will have been any better, on the whole, than the other"? Read it as many times as you have to. Then look up the "law of large numbers" online and learn what it says. Maybe then I can stop repeating myself. BUt 'the long run' is irrelevant when what you are talking about is a campaign, and not switching charactersw as if they were disposable tissues. If that is your campaign style, where you are creating new characters ast a rapid pace, then I suppose we aren't even talking about the same scenarios. I don't think of balance in terms of 'over multiple campaigns' but within one. WIth char4acters that are intended for long term use.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 08:55 PM	If you game every other week thats 26 sessions. Assuming that they go through 4 characters a year thats hardly every other session. Solaris brings up a good point though, there usually isn't a huge difference between the high and low and there is even less discrepancy when you use 4d6 drop the lowest. YOur campaigns go through four characters a year? Wow. ANd I;ve had players tell me ~I~ run a deadly or difficult campaign. .. Never come anywhere NEAR that.
a_psh 11-21-06, 08:57 PM	Just so you note: when I said three a year, that was over multiple simultaneous campaigns. A few of my friends were doing two every week for a while.
Solaris 11-21-06, 08:59 PM	I don't think of balance in terms of 'over multiple campaigns' but within one.Fair enough. I think of it over all characters made. If we can disagree about when the game starts, and what "fair" and "balance" mean, I don't have any problem with also disagreeing about the time interval over which we apply the word "balance". As I pointed out long ago, the two camps are coming from such completely different perspectives that it's almost impossible for them to converse meaningfully on this topic.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 09:09 PM	Fair enough. I think of it over all characters made. If we can disagree about when the game starts, and what "fair" and "balance" mean, I don't have any problem with also disagreeing about the time interval over which we apply the word "balance". As I pointed out long ago, the two camps are coming from such completely different perspectives that it's almost impossible for them to converse meaningfully on this topic. TO me, its like saying "Well, the refs will make the calls in the opponent's favour this season, but hey, they'll make all the calls in YOUR favour the next season, so it will all balance out."
Solaris 11-21-06, 09:10 PM	TO me, its like saying "Well, the refs will make the calls in the opponent's favour this season, but hey, they'll make all the calls in YOUR favour the next season, so it will all balance out." Yeah, well, I guess you would think that. There's nothing I can do about it, however.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 09:11 PM	Yeah, well, I guess you would think that. There's nothing I can do about it, however. . .tell me in what way that is inaccurate?
Solaris 11-21-06, 09:12 PM	In my campaigns, the players are not in competition against each other. Your mileage may vary. You're really just in this discussion for the fight, aren't you? Another way it's inaccurate: Even if they were in direct competition, a disadvantage in average scores doesn't mean all the calls will be made in favor of the guy with the higher score average. A character is more than the sum of his ability scores.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 09:16 PM	In my campaigns, the players are not in competition against each other. Your mileage may vary. You're really just in this discussion for the fight, aren't you? No. YOur point of view just REALLY makes no sense to me and I am trying to elicit SOMETHING that makes it comprehendable to me. THis has nothing to do with inter - player competition.
Solaris 11-21-06, 09:18 PM	No. YOur point of view just REALLY makes no sense to me and I am trying to elicit SOMETHING that makes it comprehendable to me.Perhaps everyone would be better served if you stopped. If I haven't been able to do it in nine pages, I don't have very high hopes. Just by the way, your analogy had everything to do with competition.
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 09:21 PM	Perhaps everyone would be better served if you stopped. If I haven't been able to do it in nine pages, I don't have very high hopes. Just by the way, your analogy had everything to do with competition. It had to do with an even set of conditions being applied. Csalls were just the easiest way to show it. BUt, I suppose you are right about one thig: I am NOT going to understand it. Saying "I don't mind that its not balanced is one thing, and thats quite fine. Different opinion, whatever floats your boat. Its the "But it IS balanced" that gets me but. .. OH well> Agree to disagree.
Solaris 11-21-06, 09:22 PM	I'm just one of the many people who managed to play this game for 25 or 30 years without spending the whole time going "Oh my God, this game is so broken. If only there were some way to give all characters exactly the same value of scores". The notion that rolling for stats is okay shouldn't be terribly hard to come to terms wtih. But yes, let's do agree to disagree (something I called for a long, long time ago).
Stev Beren 11-21-06, 09:25 PM	I'm just one of the many people who managed to play this game for 25 or 30 years without spending the whole time going "Oh my God, this game is so broken. If only there were some way to give all characters exactly the same value of scores". The notion that rolling for stats is okay shouldn't be terribly hard to come to terms wtih. But yes, let's do agree to disagree (something I called for a long, long time ago). Note I didn't say it wasn't OKAY> .that is an entirely different argument.
thought_riot 11-22-06, 12:12 AM	THis has nothing to do with inter - player competition. Then whats it matter if one player is better than another? I mean, it's not like you're going to get a player with all 18s and a player with all 3's. The characters will, generally, come out roughly around the same. If you have a good DM, neither player will hog the spotlight or outshine the other. Since there's no inter-player competition either, it's perfectly fine.
Sim_antix 11-22-06, 12:29 AM	Maybe its because of the length of time that we have been playing that we understand that things like ability scores even out...
Solaris 11-22-06, 12:33 AM	Maybe its because of the length of time that we have been playing that we understand that things like ability scores even out... There are plenty of long-time players who now prefer point-buy.
babysamurai 11-22-06, 03:32 AM	There are plenty of long-time players who now prefer point-buy. …Like myself. But there is nothing "wrong" with rolling either (we did it for many years). It comes down, like most things, to personal choice. On another tip, has anyone implemented a point buy higher than 32, and if so, how did it work out for you (CR's etc)?
LCD2YOU 11-22-06, 09:00 AM	If a player wants to use Point Buy, I let them. The standard is the 32 point character build. For the most part, they are equivalent to the 4d6 drop the lowest die. As for CRs, I've been known to TPK/capture a group of five 4th level characters with ten 2nd level Warrior (CR 1) Orcs. Tactics, tactics, tactics.
Sae Cael Oanar 11-22-06, 11:40 AM	one second level orc warrior is cr1, ten of them would be considerably more, without checking, im not sure what, but i wouldnt say its out of the question for them to team up and catch 5 level 4s.
LCD2YOU 11-22-06, 12:38 PM	one second level orc warrior is cr1, ten of them would be considerably more, without checking, im not sure what, but i wouldnt say its out of the question for them to team up and catch 5 level 4s.According to this calculator, http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/EPLvsEL.html, the party was ECL 4.6 vs ECL 6.6 for all the Orcs. The ECL of 4.6 may not be accurate as the party was on average equal to 34 to 38 point build. What made it so bad was though party had magic and magical support, they came at the Orcs haphazardly allowing the Orcs to use tactics. End result, all party members captured and no Orcs were killed. They learned that they all fight together or they all leave together.
thought_riot 11-22-06, 02:29 PM	…Like myself. But there is nothing "wrong" with rolling either (we did it for many years). It comes down, like most things, to personal choice. On another tip, has anyone implemented a point buy higher than 32, and if so, how did it work out for you (CR's etc)? For a while, our group played with 5d6 drop two lowest. The point buy equivalents were substantially higher than 32. Everything went rather fine though. Our upcoming campaign, the point buy equivalents of the ability scores are all above 40, with the highest being 51. We'll see how it goes.
Stev Beren 11-22-06, 02:39 PM	Then whats it matter if one player is better than another? I mean, it's not like you're going to get a player with all 18s and a player with all 3's. The characters will, generally, come out roughly around the same. If you have a good DM, neither player will hog the spotlight or outshine the other. Since there's no inter-player competition either, it's perfectly fine. And if the differences aren't significant, why bother to roll? The argument, in that case, could work both ways.
Stev Beren 11-22-06, 02:42 PM	Maybe its because of the length of time that we have been playing that we understand that things like ability scores even out... As for long - term players. . does 20 or so years of consistantly playing count as "A long term player"? I rolled, and as soon as I saw point buy, I switched and never went back, for the most part. Just like I'm not going to make a ridiculous claim like 'You only roll because you are ignorant' please don't try to make the claim that people DON'T roll because they are ignorant.
thought_riot 11-22-06, 03:29 PM	And if the differences aren't significant, why bother to roll? The argument, in that case, could work both ways. Why not? It still gives a factor of randomness. Stev, BOTH point buy and rolling are perfectly acceptable, and both are balanced.
Sim_antix 11-22-06, 03:54 PM	As for long - term players. . does 20 or so years of consistantly playing count as "A long term player"? I rolled, and as soon as I saw point buy, I switched and never went back, for the most part. Just like I'm not going to make a ridiculous claim like 'You only roll because you are ignorant' please don't try to make the claim that people DON'T roll because they are ignorant. Ummm when did I do anything of the sort? The only thing I ever said was that by your own admission Point Buy eliminates immaturity and jealousy issues for the people that can't handle the "unfairness" of rolling. Never did I say anything about ignorance.
Stev Beren 11-22-06, 05:04 PM	Ummm when did I do anything of the sort? The only thing I ever said was that by your own admission Point Buy eliminates immaturity and jealousy issues for the people that can't handle the "unfairness" of rolling. Never did I say anything about ignorance. I didn't say that, that was another poster. If you want to say ~I~ was misquoting you, don't misquote me in the process. Immaturity and jealousy are imaturity and jealousy, and they have nothing to do with why I like point buy.
Stev Beren 11-22-06, 05:10 PM	Why not? It still gives a factor of randomness. Stev, BOTH point buy and rolling are perfectly acceptable, and both are balanced. Both are acceptable. Absolutely true and never denied it. Rolling is 'fair' in the sense that they do give everyone rolling an equal chance at getting any particular set of results. Rolling is not balanced, by definition. Unless you use a rather strange definition of balanced that includes several campaigns and several characters over a long period of time, instead of talking about any particular campaign. If you were saying its a perfectly acceptable choice, I would have stoped any argument a LONG time ago. But the insistance that its balanced is the sticking point.
Solaris 11-22-06, 06:14 PM	Tsk, tsk, tsk. Thought we were just going to agree to disagree on our definitions. But no... we have to be right, don't we? We have to keep on pushing it. :rolleyes: Rolling is not balanced, by definition. Unless you use a rather strange definition of balanced that includes several campaigns and several characters over a long period of time, instead of talking about any particular campaign. Rolling for stats is balanced, unless you use a rather strange definition of balanced that implies being identical at every single outcome. By your definition, rolling a d20 for combat isn't balanced unless everyone gets the same result each round, the fact that it balances out in the long run being irrelevant. Individual rolls might not balance perfectly (I have admitted this again and again), but the process is balanced. I don't care about individual rolls. You do. Big Deal. See, I can repeat myself just as long as you can. Next iteration...
Stev Beren 11-22-06, 06:45 PM	Tsk, tsk, tsk. Thought we were just going to agree to disagree on our definitions. But no... we have to be right, don't we? We have to keep on pushing it. :rolleyes: Rolling for stats is balanced, unless you use a rather strange definition of balanced that implies being identical at every single outcome. By your definition, rolling a d20 for combat isn't balanced unless everyone gets the same result each round, the fact that it balances out in the long run being irrelevant. Individual rolls might not balance perfectly (I have admitted this again and again), but the process is balanced. I don't care about individual rolls. You do. Big Deal. See, I can repeat myself just as long as you can. Next iteration... . . .Was the reply actually to you? By the quote on it, I thought it was a definite reply to someone else. I did finish my conversation with you> HOwever, someone ELSE brought it up, and I am replying to them.
Solaris 11-22-06, 06:50 PM	I did finish my conversation with you> HOwever, someone ELSE brought it up, and I am replying to them. Basically, you stopped with me, and then turned to the guy sitting next to me and started spouting the same stuff you and I had been arguing about. I'm still right here... I suppose you could have an identical discussion with him, until you agree to disagree, and then move on to the next person, and so on. If that's the plan, then yeah, I'll just leave you to it.
Sae Cael Oanar 11-22-06, 08:48 PM	Rolling for stats is balanced, unless you use a rather strange definition of balanced that implies being identical at every single outcome. By your definition, rolling a d20 for combat isn't balanced unless everyone gets the same result each round, the fact that it balances out in the long run being irrelevant. the d20 argument is a weak one, im afraid. you might roll a d20 25 times a session, where as it might take a decade to roll up that many characters. to say it balances out in the long run makes alot more sense in the case of rolling a d20. the truth is it wouldnt take odds that were all that terrible to make every character youve ever rolled be underpowered compared to the rest of your group. edit: id also like to note, that i dont want to be underpowered this character and overpowered the next, that doesnt count as even. being stronger than everyone can be as little fun as being weaker than everyone. id prefer everyone to be equal.
Solaris 11-22-06, 09:12 PM	the d20 argument is a weak one, im afraid. you might roll a d20 25 times a session, where as it might take a decade to roll up that many characters. Meh. 4 characters gives you 24 stat rolls. The fact remains that if rolling stats is unbalanced because the rolls differ, then rolling for anything is unbalanced because the rolls differ. Balance comes with time -- whether it's a longer time for stats, a shorter time for hit points, or an even shorter time for combat -- but it does come. I don't mind if you want to be equal. I just mind people accusing rolling of being unfair (or unbalanced, or however they want to try to spin it).
dalamb 11-22-06, 09:51 PM	They average out because given enough different characters everyone will have had around the same number of good rolls vs not so good ones....I wonder if one of the big differences between the 'sides' is that some people create lots of characters over time, and others create very few and keep them a long time? So that for some people they're never 'given enough characters.' If I rolled up an arena character every week, I doubt I'd mind the unevenness of rolling so much, but when I create one for a campaign that lasts a year, the variation hurts me more.
Calestin Kethal 11-23-06, 03:45 AM	To the OP, assuming they are still reading the thread: I have tried point buy (25, 28, and 32) but not 22. I like MAD-required characters so I was only really happy with the 28 and 32 point buys. Usually it went well. As an aside: I was a roller for *many* years. I have always played in a 5+ player games which (until 3.5) meant a certain amount of redundancy. Seeing and being on the recieving end of, "I can do everything you can do, but I can do it better. You're not pulling your weight", makes for unappealing play when you are looking at 8 months to 1.5 years between new characters. Especially when (in most of the games I played in) Bob always rolls the stunning 16+ set and Jason always rolls the 14- set. (Yes, witnessed by the DM and using different sets of dice.) It becomes unfun for the person who always plays second fiddle over the course of 5 years of gaming. My gaming group played with various stat generating options, and we've decided on a stat spread. Its usually based on the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), with variance based on campaign type and GM. Since 3.5 we've used it as a standard. In theory it makes for cookie cutter builds, but I have yet to see the same stat allocation even when 2 players are playing the same class. In some cases, it has cause an interesting diversification. (IE: One person plays the social rogue and the other playing a backstabby rogue, with their stat spread matching that.) As always, your mileage may vary. Oh, and can anyone name a non-epic prestige class that requires a first level stat above 14? The highest stat entry I could think of is Archmage, which requires access to 7th level spells and requires a casting stat of 17+. But starting with a 14, you could have an int/cha of 17 by 12th level. You can't even qualify for Archmage until 13th level.
babysamurai 11-23-06, 04:32 AM	For a while, our group played with 5d6 drop two lowest. The point buy equivalents were substantially higher than 32. Everything went rather fine though. The reason I now dig point buy, is "because" I let my players roll 5d6 drop the lowest two for their ability scores in my current campaign. Well, one player had a 40 PB equivalent, and another player had a 67 PB equivalent. So, instead of taking away from the scores that the 67 PB player rolled honestly and "fairly" in front of everyone, we, the 67 PB player and myself, decided it was "balancing" to bring the other 3 players in the campaign up to a 67 PB. ...See how that works? *Looks at Solaris* We all agree that’s it's much better for all the players to have the same amount of points to spread around, whether it's 22, 25, 28, 32, or our outrageous, accidental 67! Next time, 11 Pont Buy, baby!
Pandaemoni 11-23-06, 04:51 AM	I've never done a 22 point buy, but I've never been a huge fan of point buy games. As I'm sure has been discussed to death in this thread (as I've not read the whole thing), the advantage of the point buy is that no one gets "shafted" by having lower scores than other party members. That is "sort of" a good thing...but in practice I find it is only a psychological benefit. I've had games where players didn't realise there were huge disparities in stats for months on end, and only realized it when they glimpsed other players' character sheets later in the game. It's only when you see the numbers written down that it seems like it becomes an issue, not in actual game play. Dice rolling allows for that sort of damaging disparity, but *if* you get good rolls then it also allows for multi-ability dependent characters that are much tougher to pull off under a traditional point buy--and I'd think impossible under a 22 point buy. I did once have a game where everyone rolled 4d6 (drop lowest), we converted that to a point buy equivalent (with each point below 8 equal to a "-1" point) and then everyone used the highest point-buy total. That was well-received by the players, though I think that as because everyone wound up with 35-point buy characters. I personally was not thrilled with it, but the players liked it. Other options I've tried include rolling sets of scores until you have *at least* the equivalent of a 30 point buy...with any sets of scores that are lower than 30 points getting tossed away. That limited the ability to ind up with a really weak character. That was probably my favorite of the hybrid methods.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 08:33 AM	I've never done a 22 point buy, but I've never been a huge fan of point buy games. As I'm sure has been discussed to death in this thread (as I've not read the whole thing), the advantage of the point buy is that no one gets "shafted" by having lower scores than other party members. That is "sort of" a good thing...but in practice I find it is only a psychological benefit. I've had games where players didn't realise there were huge disparities in stats for months on end, and only realized it when they glimpsed other players' character sheets later in the game. It's only when you see the numbers written down that it seems like it becomes an issue, not in actual game play. Dice rolling allows for that sort of damaging disparity, but *if* you get good rolls then it also allows for multi-ability dependent characters that are much tougher to pull off under a traditional point buy--and I'd think impossible under a 22 point buy. I did once have a game where everyone rolled 4d6 (drop lowest), we converted that to a point buy equivalent (with each point below 8 equal to a "-1" point) and then everyone used the highest point-buy total. That was well-received by the players, though I think that as because everyone wound up with 35-point buy characters. I personally was not thrilled with it, but the players liked it. Other options I've tried include rolling sets of scores until you have *at least* the equivalent of a 30 point buy...with any sets of scores that are lower than 30 points getting tossed away. That limited the ability to ind up with a really weak character. That was probably my favorite of the hybrid methods. See, its also for me. I have less owrry about 'shafting' a particular players in what is encountered, etcetera. . . And the previous poster is right, I don't create and discare charachters like disposable diapers, and neither do my players. We have a current campaign that has been running now for two years. I GM in another campaign - with a different group of players. Again, roplling stats, 'fair', in the sense of even odds at the beginning - check. And as far as "MAD" Characters being impossible to pull off under a normal point buy. . . Meh. I have a party with two paladins, a Ranger, a Nature priest(Not a druid), a Fighter and a Sorcerer. Its up to seventh level now. THese "MAD-dependant' problems with having done point buy(In this case a 28) have yet to have manifested. I have also noticed that most of the SAME people that will go through saying that the differences in stats and bonuses 'don't mean much' in support of rolling ALSO simoultaneously argue that Paladins and the like get shafted due to. .differences in bonuses and the like. So at the same time the bonuses don't matter and yet at the same time shaft the paladin because they are similar in point buy. At the same time, there isn't really that much variation so its not unbalanced, but the variation is what makes it good. Etcetera. .
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 09:17 AM	What Solaris is saying is this: Everything averages out when you roll several times. I am going to roll 4d6 sets (6) four times for two different "players". I will list them and at the end, I'll have the "point buy value" in (X) and the total bonus/minus for all stats, ie 16=+3 and 13=+1 so the total = {+4}. Player 1: Game 1: 17, 10, 12, 14, 10, 11 (30) {+6} Game 2: 13, 11, 14, 16, 8, 15 (32) {+7} Game 3: 4, 14, 10, 6, 5, 11 (9) {-6} By DMG, this character can be tossed away and a new one rolled up. Game 3, redux: 16, 10, 14, 7, 15, 16 (36) {+8} Game 4: 14, 6, 16, 13, 17, 15 (42) {+9} Player 2: Game 1: 9, 10, 14, 17, 13, 15 (35) {+7} Game 2: 11, 13, 17, 18, 13, 15 (45) {+11} Game 3: 16, 16, 8, 16, 12, 7 (34) {+7} Game 4: 17, 7, 15, 17, 5, 15 (42) {+5} If you go by points, Player one to create a charactre got 30+32+36+42 = 140/4 = 35 average per game to create their character. Player two had an average of 35+45+34+42 = 156/4 = 39 per character. Sounds like an imbalance but look at player 2's character for the fourth game. 42 points to build ala DMG but only a +5 in total stat bonuses. That's a lot of "points" to get relatively little in return. As far as "total point bonues go", Player 1 had an average of 7.5 for all characters while Player 2 had the exact same 7.5 as the other player. What this shows is in the end dice are more random and though you may think that Player 2 "had more points", which 42 point character would you like to run in a game? I personally believe that random rolling makes the player better as they have to find ways to fit the stats they were given into a single concept and that is difficult. It may also put the character into playing something they might not ordinarily take, like I've had to do. I found that I really did enjoy Wizards. Take a "42 point buy", if I were to build my character on that, I'd decide on a Paladin and he'd look like this: Str 16, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 14 Trying to build a Paladin from the players' rolled stats: Player 1's: Str 17, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 6, Wis 14, Cha 15 Now I wouldn't want do it as the only thing I believe I could but the 6 in would by intelligence and I refuse to believe a Paladin can be that stupid. The typical Orc is smarter. That doesn't work for me so Wizard, here I come: Str 6, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 17, Wis 14, Cha 15 IMO, that makes a great wizard. Player 2's: Str17, Dex 7, Con 15, Int 5, Wis 17, Cha 15 That don't work for me so I'd make him a fighter: Str 17, Dex 15, Con 17, Int 5, Wis 15, Cha 7 Here's your "strong, silent and none too bright" type with no real personality but remembers things very well and is very wise. So in the end, after rolling many times everything evens out. That is what Solaris had to say and I added my :twocents: in as well.
babysamurai 11-23-06, 09:38 AM	So in the end, after rolling many times everything evens out. That is what Solaris had to say and I added my :twocents: in as well. Yes, but some of us roll one character that can last years. One attack roll doesn't last years. So, if in that one campaign that lasted 3 years, and one player rolled 18, 16, 16, 15, 13, 10, and the other player rolled 13, 13, 12, 10, 10, 8. …That’s not too cool, IMO. PC's are not like doughnuts to some of us.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 10:06 AM	What Solaris is saying is this: Everything averages out when you roll several times. I am going to roll 4d6 sets (6) four times for two different "players". I will list them and at the end, I'll have the "point buy value" in (X) and the total bonus/minus for all stats, ie 16=+3 and 13=+1 so the total = {+4}. Player 1: Game 1: 17, 10, 12, 14, 10, 11 (30) {+6} Game 2: 13, 11, 14, 16, 8, 15 (32) {+7} Game 3: 4, 14, 10, 6, 5, 11 (9) {-6} By DMG, this character can be tossed away and a new one rolled up. Game 3, redux: 16, 10, 14, 7, 15, 16 (36) {+8} Game 4: 14, 6, 16, 13, 17, 15 (42) {+9} Player 2: Game 1: 9, 10, 14, 17, 13, 15 (35) {+7} Game 2: 11, 13, 17, 18, 13, 15 (45) {+11} Game 3: 16, 16, 8, 16, 12, 7 (34) {+7} Game 4: 17, 7, 15, 17, 5, 15 (42) {+5} If you go by points, Player one to create a charactre got 30+32+36+42 = 140/4 = 35 average per game to create their character. Player two had an average of 35+45+34+42 = 156/4 = 39 per character. Sounds like an imbalance but look at player 2's character for the fourth game. 42 points to build ala DMG but only a +5 in total stat bonuses. That's a lot of "points" to get relatively little in return. As far as "total point bonues go", Player 1 had an average of 7.5 for all characters while Player 2 had the exact same 7.5 as the other player. What this shows is in the end dice are more random and though you may think that Player 2 "had more points", which 42 point character would you like to run in a game? I personally believe that random rolling makes the player better as they have to find ways to fit the stats they were given into a single concept and that is difficult. It may also put the character into playing something they might not ordinarily take, like I've had to do. I found that I really did enjoy Wizards. Take a "42 point buy", if I were to build my character on that, I'd decide on a Paladin and he'd look like this: Str 16, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 14 Trying to build a Paladin from the players' rolled stats: Player 1's: Str 17, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 6, Wis 14, Cha 15 Now I wouldn't want do it as the only thing I believe I could but the 6 in would by intelligence and I refuse to believe a Paladin can be that stupid. The typical Orc is smarter. That doesn't work for me so Wizard, here I come: Str 6, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 17, Wis 14, Cha 15 IMO, that makes a great wizard. Player 2's: Str17, Dex 7, Con 15, Int 5, Wis 17, Cha 15 That don't work for me so I'd make him a fighter: Str 17, Dex 15, Con 17, Int 5, Wis 15, Cha 7 Here's your "strong, silent and none too bright" type with no real personality but remembers things very well and is very wise. So in the end, after rolling many times everything evens out. That is what Solaris had to say and I added my :twocents: in as well. ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept.
babysamurai 11-23-06, 10:15 AM	ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept. Exactly – use the points to buy scores to realize my vision, not stuff whatever I "rolled" into my concept.
thought_riot 11-23-06, 01:04 PM	I think this is actually why, if I remember correctly, the PHB says to roll your stats prior to choosing your class and race.
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 01:18 PM	Exactly – use the points to buy scores to realize my vision, not stuff whatever I "rolled" into my concept.Sorry if you two can't handle it. Sorry if your vision is set in concrete. I think it's great role-playing something different or make characters that you wouldn't normally make. Perhaps point buy is what people use when they are inflexible of actually making something different. Think that's rude of me? I think it's completely accurate.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 01:21 PM	Sorry if you two can't handle it. Sorry if your vision is set in concrete. I think it's great role-playing something different or make characters that you wouldn't normally make. Perhaps point buy is what people use when they are inflexible of actually making something different. Think that's rude of me? I think it's completely accurate. Creativity or creating things different does not come from a random set of numbers. A random set of numbers is a crutch> If I wanted to repeat your rudness from the other direction I coudl say, for example, "SOme of us don't have to rely on random numbers on a stat - sheet in order to realize a 'different' character."
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 01:22 PM	ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept.Read:ANd some of us also do the same type of character concept over and over again and then put the points excatly where we want so we get exactly the exact numbers where we want to place it, not come up with any randomnumbers that upsets what we want as we come in dead set to a very particular character concept.That may seem rude to you but that is exactly how it reads to me.
justdmjeff 11-23-06, 01:49 PM	ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept. And that is fine for some people. Some of us like to go into a campaign and have no idea what the character is going to be. We roll and then start the character concept.
a_psh 11-23-06, 01:54 PM	What Solaris is saying is this: Everything averages out when you roll several times.And the counterpoint being made is that this kind of long-term average isn't "balance". Counting on your next set of rolls made a year from now "balancing" things out is like playing a prestige class where you get nothing for 9 levels and then an amazing power and +10 caster levels all at level 10. Yeah, it averages out over the very long term, but I don't think anyone here's gonna call it "balanced" in the way that term is now standardly applied to D&D. As far as "balance" is concerned, Solaris' most effective defense of the "average over time" thing was to point out that the variance among a whole party of rolled characters was not that big to begin with, not that the law of large numbers actually applied very strongly here (in other words, most of the randomness-fixing was happening because of the curve of the Xd6 roll rather than the fact that you were doing so repetitively). Sorry if you two can't handle it. Sorry if your vision is set in concrete. I think it's great role-playing something different or make characters that you wouldn't normally make. Perhaps point buy is what people use when they are inflexible of actually making something different.If you're gonna go all "roleplaying elitist" with your argument and you're playing D&D, all I can do is sit here and laugh.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 01:59 PM	Read:That may seem rude to you but that is exactly how it reads to me. So a character concept is creative only if what you originally had in mind is disrupted by a random set of rolls? Ah. I had not been aware of that particular rule of the universe. Just because somethign includes random numbers, does not make it creative.
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 02:00 PM	Not worth it.
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 02:01 PM	Not worth it either.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 02:03 PM	No. Not really. Its just leaning on the crutch of an imposed numerical weakness to compensate for not being able to come up with weaknesses and differences on the character on your own. Someone who is creative, will be creative with or without random stats,. Someone who is not creative will not be creative with or without random stats. Random stats do not create creativity. Try again.
Sim_antix 11-23-06, 02:09 PM	First of all, there is no reason to be snide and passive-aggressive. Please take your own advice... Solaris has been calmly and rationally explaining that some gamers find that rolling balances out just fine in practice and they prefer to have some luck and randomness in their characters starting abilities. Those in favor of point buy have said that it is unbalanced but aside from the obviousness of there being different values assigned to the starting sets they haven't actually shown how this unbalances the game. Thats right the game is more than just drawing up characters. You can obsess over your stats all day but if you are then I think you are missing out on an entire other side of the game, a side where numbers fade and fantasies come to life. Man now I want to go play! It is considered rude as well as illogical to declare "winners" in an on going debate, especially when you are on one side of it and not an impartial observer.
thought_riot 11-23-06, 02:18 PM	Random stats do not create creativity. Try again. They create creativity as much as point-buy creates creativity. This debate is getting more ridiculous by the second. D&D by it's very nature requires creativity. It exists no matter what method you use to choose your ability scores.
Stev Beren 11-23-06, 02:47 PM	They create creativity as much as point-buy creates creativity. This debate is getting more ridiculous by the second. D&D by it's very nature requires creativity. It exists no matter what method you use to choose your ability scores. Note that was a response to someone claiming that people were not creative if they used a point buy, or that ist was an exuse for non - creativity - why not speak to that person?
justdmjeff 11-23-06, 03:14 PM	No. Not really. Its just leaning on the crutch of an imposed numerical weakness to compensate for not being able to come up with weaknesses and differences on the character on your own. Someone who is creative, will be creative with or without random stats,. Someone who is not creative will not be creative with or without random stats. Random stats do not create creativity. Try again. So to qualify to play in your game one must first write the great american novel? I guess I'm too stupid to play in your game since I use those random stats too inspire some creativity.
thought_riot 11-23-06, 03:26 PM	Note that was a response to someone claiming that people were not creative if they used a point buy, or that ist was an exuse for non - creativity - why not speak to that person? Perhaps I'm overlooking it. Show me where somebody said "point buy doesn't create creativity"? I "spoke" to you because your "Random stats don't create creativity" statement prompted me to respond to it. I'm speaking to everybody on tihs thread though.
dalamb 11-23-06, 06:01 PM	On another tip, has anyone implemented a point buy higher than 32, and if so, how did it work out for you (CR's etc)?I've never played a point buy higher than 32, but I've seen one or two advertised in game recruiting threads at dndonlinegames.com and/or myth-weavers.com.The Winners: Stev Beren Nom dalambWhat do we win? :confused:
dalamb 11-23-06, 06:14 PM	ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept.Exactly – use the points to buy scores to realize my vision, not stuff whatever I "rolled" into my concept.That's certainly what I like to do these days, but I have a faint memory of the ancient days (around 1979) when one of our DMs used what's now called 'iron man' IIRC -- 3d6, six times, in order :eek: , with some leeway for throwing things out if they seemed (to him) unplayable. His theory was that it was nice (in his campaign) to start without any preconceptions and invent a character that fit the stats. I don't recall playing much in his campaign, but there's an existance proof that some people liked the idea of being forced to abandon predefined ideas. I think I hear echoes of that in some of what a few rolling fans have said, but I may be misinterpreting.
dalamb 11-23-06, 06:24 PM	Sorry if you two can't handle it. Sorry if your vision is set in concrete.You say you're sorry, but you don't sound sorry. ;) Once in a while, if I'm in the right mood, I might find generating a character from the stats to be fun. If I found something else I thought was fun, and you didn't, would you be happy if I said 'LCD2YOU can't handle it'?I think it's great role-playing something different or make characters that you wouldn't normally make.I suppose that's plausible, but it's not the only kind of great role-playing, and I don't see why someone is somehow inferior if they don't prefer every style of roleplaying anyone has ever thought of.Perhaps point buy is what people use when they are inflexible of actually making something different.I doubt us point-buyers are so brain-dead as to be 'inflexible of making something different' if we had a good reason. It's just not as fun. I've come around to accepting that folks like you find rolling to be more fun than point-buying (and are 'OK' in thinking that way); some reciprocation instead of vituperation might be nice.Think that's rude of me? I think it's completely accurate.Some people are 'inflexible of arguing without being rude'. :P
a_psh 11-23-06, 06:24 PM	In response to babysamurai's second question: I tried a game with point-buy 38 once. It was online and back during 3.0 days. We were all rather new to 3rd edition and most of the players went either for psionic characters (who needed EVERY STAT in 3.0 edition) or warrior-y types that they wanted to roleplay as pretty smart of clever or charming, so the party wasn't very munched-out or overpowered. Everyone just ended up with better Charisma scores than they probably would've taken at a lower point-buy value, and it was nice that everyone had some skill points to throw around. I think there was only one 17 or 18 among the group of... err, four characters? Being totally new to 3rd Edition, I came up with that number by making up stats for what I thought would be a cool character and then counting how many points it was worth. If it was more than enough for me, it was more than enough for the group, I figured. And, actually, it was. Worked pretty well. Yes, it was a lot. Even the halfling psion had 12 Strength! But he needed it to use powers back then, anyway.
Mula 11-23-06, 07:40 PM	I've never tried point buy with 22 points; 25 is the lowest. I usually go for 28 these days when I DM (but 32 when playing in FR; talk about inflated stats...). I'd love to play in a game with 22 points, though. I like point buy as a player because I write a background first and then assign ability scores according to the character I just created; just like I assign feats and skills and hair color and skin color and height and weight and spells and gear, etc. I prefer doing the personality and history of a character first because that way I get more attached to it and thus not get bored with the character. Yes, I do have a tendency to get bored with characters that are stats and abilities first, personality second. I like point buy as a DM because I dislike the randomness of rolled stats for players. (Note that as a player I really don't care what the other players have.) Also, fixed hp and starting gold.
Zumarai 11-24-06, 04:44 AM	Of course back in the day, we had to roll, and while it could be exciting, it could also be nerve wracking, especially if you knew you were going to be playing the character for a long time (hopefully). That half hour or so where all the players roll up their characters, and that one guy who rolls insanely, and that other chap who rolls, well, not so good. It's fine for some people who like the challenge of playing the Pippin or the Tasslehoff etc, but for the dude who had his sights set on being an Aragorn or an Elric, it can be disappointing. The same goes for hit points, that one guy who keeps rolling 8's and 9's for his fighters hit points, and the other dude who keeps rolling 3's and 4's for his barbarians hit points. That's why I am now a convert to Point Buy and fixed hit points. But I would still like to do a hard-core mini campaign, or maybe longer depending on how much fun it turned out to be, where all the players roll 3d6 in order and take what you're given. …Never played a wizard before, well now's the time, Jack.
Pandaemoni 11-24-06, 09:40 AM	ANd some of us also do a character concept and then try to fit the numbers to it, not come up with numbers and try to figure out a character concept. While I can understand that...is it really such a hardship to come up with two or three character class ideas, then wait for the die rolls to see which one you can most effectively pull off? I don't think it is. The problem is one of expectations. If you say to yourself, before you create the character, "I want to play a monk-wizard-enlightened fist transitioning into Incantator" then getting your stats to be "just so" is tremendously important. If you set your expectations to "I would like to player a monk-wizard, if I have the stats for it, but I can try a straight forward monk or wizard if I don't" then you have concepts that fit a variety of potential stats: high MAD stats: monk-wizard-enlightened fist combo medium MAD stats: monk low single stat dependent: wizard If one adjusts one's expectations away from "this is the one and only build that I want to play and anything else is unnacceptable" then random ability scores shouldn't leave that player in a lurch. Personally, I prefer to think of the personality first, then stats, then professions. So I might decide to play a mercenary character who's in it for the money, but who secretly views people in need of saving as weaklings and those who aid them for free as idiots, then roll my stats, then decide to play him as a fighter or wizard or (if my stats are hight) as a gish. The personality would for any of them. The personality is more important for me than the particular "build," which is likely why my expectations about stat rolling are so different from yours. (Then again, stat rolling also leads to "stat inflation." Over time I have seen more and more people try to tell me that they magically rolled up 40-or-higher point buy equivalent characters using 4d6. It's not impossible...but the frequency of it has signalled to me that some people as just BSing because they want godly characters. At least with point-buys, there would be no need for me to monitor dice rolling.)
Zumarai 11-24-06, 10:03 AM	(Then again, stat rolling also leads to "stat inflation." Over time I have seen more and more people try to tell me that they magically rolled up 40-or-higher point buy equivalent characters using 4d6. It's not impossible...but the frequency of it has signalled to me that some people as just BSing because they want godly characters. At least with point-buys, there would be no need for me to monitor dice rolling.) Ah, yes, the player who saunters up to you "Look, I rolled these!" ...Sure you did.
Mula 11-24-06, 01:06 PM	While I can understand that...is it really such a hardship to come up with two or three character class ideas, then wait for the die rolls to see which one you can most effectively pull off? I don't think it is. The problem is one of expectations. If you say to yourself, before you create the character, "I want to play a monk-wizard-enlightened fist transitioning into Incantator" then getting your stats to be "just so" is tremendously important. If you set your expectations to "I would like to player a monk-wizard, if I have the stats for it, but I can try a straight forward monk or wizard if I don't" then you have concepts that fit a variety of potential stats:) Concept in this case is not a certain build. It's more like a 2,000+ word background. It is a hardship to come up with two or three of these for a game, since crafting these backgrounds tends to take some time.
Sim_antix 11-24-06, 02:51 PM	But at the same time you are going to get better scores by rolling most times since if the rolls are too low then you get a re roll where as with point buy if there aren't enough points to cover all of the attributes you wanted then you are out of luck.
Stev Beren 11-24-06, 06:18 PM	So to qualify to play in your game one must first write the great american novel? I guess I'm too stupid to play in your game since I use those random stats too inspire some creativity. PUtting words into my mouth again? Did I say anythign abvout what you must do to play in my gasme? I just said that creative people are creative with or without rolling and uncreative peopel are iuncreative with or without rolling. The rest is stuff you read into it to try to set up a false argument to knock down. ]
Sim_antix 11-24-06, 06:22 PM	For the record creative people can make their character concepts work with rolling however if you set the point buy too low they might not always be able to make some character concepts work. Point buy unfairly gimps creativity.
a_psh 11-24-06, 06:36 PM	For the record creative people can make their character concepts work with rolling however if you set the point buy too low they might not always be able to make some character concepts work. Point buy unfairly gimps creativity.This is another wonderful argument... for just choosing your own scores. I have yet to see an argument against it, actually.
dalamb 11-24-06, 07:30 PM	Point buy unfairly gimps creativity.I'm not sure I really understand what you mean (the semantics; the emotional / value-related connotations are clear). I don't see why point buy necessarily limits creativity (maybe it is for some people in some situations, I suppose). I'm told some artists have a slogan "form is freeing" -- that some constraints can actually improve creativity while narrowing choices. I think some of you dice-rollers have said a similar thing about living with the results of rolls.
justdmjeff 11-24-06, 08:27 PM	PUtting words into my mouth again? Did I say anythign abvout what you must do to play in my gasme? I just said that creative people are creative with or without rolling and uncreative peopel are iuncreative with or without rolling. The rest is stuff you read into it to try to set up a false argument to knock down. ] Try reading your own posts once in a while. You said thatCreativity or creating things different does not come from a random set of numbers. A random set of numbers is a crutch> ] Since I use that "crutch" as you call it, I just assumed you would not allow anyone to game with you that wasn't a creative genius. I'm sorry that I'm so stupid because those random sets of numbers do inspire creativity in me.
Sim_antix 11-24-06, 08:55 PM	This is another wonderful argument... for just choosing your own scores. I have yet to see an argument against it, actually. The only argument against it is the same one the anti rollers use against rolling. Immaturity and jealousy. If your players are mature enough to handle writing a character concept and then assigning the numbers as needed then I think that is indeed a very real option. Some of us just prefer to let the dice dictate instead of an arbitrary number of points that might not allow for a Paladin with high Str, Con, Wis and Cha.
a_psh 11-24-06, 09:37 PM	Some of us just prefer to let the dice dictate instead of an arbitrary number of points that might not allow for a Paladin with high Str, Con, Wis and Cha.It's not really arbitrary, though. The point sum is determined by a group and there's a standard baseline (25) and a pretty widely-held convention for what the other scores map to. Also, god forbid you actually go up to the DM and say "Hey, Mr. DM, I kinda wanted to play more 'heroic' or 'epic' characters. Maybe we should all start with 32 points this time around?"
Sim_antix 11-24-06, 09:56 PM	Telling the DM you want higher point buys is fine, except when the rest of the group doesn't want to go higher. Now you have character concepts that you will never get to play. Doesn't sound like my brand of fun.
a_psh 11-25-06, 01:31 AM	Telling the DM you want higher point buys is fine, except when the rest of the group doesn't want to go higher. Now you have character concepts that you will never get to play. Doesn't sound like my brand of fun.That's a social contract issue. Your complaint is that you want a particular power level (which is really an issue of "techniques", i.e. the procedures of play) and the rest of the group doesn't. Well, then you go compromise. Maybe you do ramp it up, maybe you don't, maybe you save it for next game. Any way you cut it, the group should be able to figure something out here. Rolling for stats only takes the issue and shoves it into the realm of random results. What's the point of that? Are the dice really better at creating a mutually agreeable situation than a whole group of rational, friendly people? Why is it that you'll accept a set of stats you didn't want and put a character aside for later when the dice tell you but won't do that when your gaming buddies tell you it won't fit into the PC group this time around? I'm sorry, but "it lets me play characters I can't make with another character creation method" isn't a selling point of rolling for stats and never will be. If you desperately, feverishly want to play a particular character and the GM and other players just won't let you, there's either something wrong with them or something wrong with you.
CharlieRock 11-25-06, 09:42 AM	How in the world does 'character concept' envelop specific stats ,unless its partly powergaming: Hmm, to be a Fighter/MU and get these feats I'll need X for STR and Y for INT :thinks: wait, I'll need Z for CON ,then I can get Feat ABC and whatever. There is a reason for point-buying, and it doesn't mean specific stats for a concept outside of powergaming. Not that I have a problem with that per se. A little powergaming is called for now and again. But, let's not disguise it as 'character concept'. :cool:
dalamb 11-25-06, 10:48 AM	Stats are at least loosely relevant to concept. Is "strong melee fighter" a character concept? Str higher than 'average' for the stat generation method, Dex maybe average or irrelevant. Not "must be 18" of course. "Highly skilled of class X" means higher Int than one might expect. Spell-casting stats have to be high enough for spells of whatever the highest class level is that you expect to reach.
Sim_antix 11-25-06, 12:59 PM	Also feats can easily become part of your characters concept. Knowing that you want to be a whirlwind fighter means that you will need to have at least a 13 or 15 (I cant remember) in dex.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 04:31 PM	Try reading your own posts once in a while. You said that Since I use that "crutch" as you call it, I just assumed you would not allow anyone to game with you that wasn't a creative genius. I'm sorry that I'm so stupid because those random sets of numbers do inspire creativity in me. **Creativity or creating things different does not come from a random set of numbers. A random set of numbers is a crutch> ** No. That does not at aqll mean you are not creative. Rolling is not the reason you are or are not creative. I use things as 'crutches' myself; listening to music, gathering quotes that I think the character might say, etcetera. But boy are you really determined to be a victim, aren't you?
Solaris 11-25-06, 04:33 PM	I believe this is the definition of "crutch" which is being used here: "anything that serves as a temporary and often inappropriate support, supplement, or substitute; prop: He uses liquor as a psychological crutch." Could someone explain exactly how playing the game the way it's always been played is a crutch in this sense? If anything, point-buy is a substitute for rolling...
Solaris 11-25-06, 04:40 PM	Rolling absolves you of coming to the table with a pre-conceived notion. But point buy absolves you of creating something out of what you roll. Is one of these more crutchy than the other? Even when you roll, you still have to come up with a character concept -- personality, history, etc. -- same as with point buy. The more I'm looking at this, the more point-buy looks like the easier option.
Solaris 11-25-06, 04:51 PM	In light of all this, I'm going to reverse the assertion. Point-buy is a crutch -- a substitute for the original way of doing it -- for people who either have difficulty coming up with concepts on the fly or simply don't want to, and people who are jealous of other players' scores. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Sim_antix 11-25-06, 05:03 PM	In light of all this, I'm going to reverse the assertion. Point-buy is a crutch -- a substitute for the original way of doing it -- for people who either have difficulty coming up with concepts on the fly or simply don't want to, and people who are jealous of other players' scores. Well said. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Not that theres anything right with it either. Or at the very least its not more right than rolling.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 06:34 PM	In light of all this, I'm going to reverse the assertion. Point-buy is a crutch -- a substitute for the original way of doing it -- for people who either have difficulty coming up with concepts on the fly or simply don't want to, and people who are jealous of other players' scores. Not that there's anything wrong with that. . .whatever. I have never seen a bunch of people so determined to be offended. All I can say is "Methinks thou dost protest too much" And obviously, for someone who complains that others don't read his posts, you haven'rt read a thing I typed. Lets see. I give a definition of what I was saying, and you for some reason deny it and say I was saying somethign ELSE instead. I'll paraphrase a bit of Lewis Carrol - words mean exactly what I want them to say, no more, no less. If I say that what I mean byu 'Crutch' is one thing, than that is what I mean by crutch, not what you _want_ me to mean.
Sim_antix 11-25-06, 06:42 PM	We aren't offended. We just want to know why you think that rolling is so bad while point buy is so great. We defend our positions and having rolling be called a crutch for people who need the dice to tell them what to play required a response. Solaris responded by reversing it and saying that point buy is a crutch for people who can't come up with characters on the fly, or at least by the dice or for people who are too immature to not get jealous when someone rolls 2 18s to their 17 and 15.
a_psh 11-25-06, 06:44 PM	It's downright stupid to talk about mechanics as a "crutch", period. (Though Stev did clarify to say that his use of "crutch" was a bit different than the typical context.) The set of rules and play procedures used in a game is what fascilitates the actual, well, playing of that game in the first place. Any mechanic that doesn't actually help you roleplay, put together a good story, have fun, &c. is absolutely worthless... it's just something that's there, not doing anything. This little argument made a lot more sense when it was based on the assumption that character generation mechanics that encourage roleplaying are, well, a good thing.
Solaris 11-25-06, 06:47 PM	I did read it. You said 'A random set of numbers is a crutch ... for example, "SOme of us don't have to rely on random numbers on a stat - sheet in order to realize a 'different' character."' You were using crutch in the sense of the definition I gave; saying that by rolling we're relying on a substitute for realizing different characters by other means. I then questioned how it could be a crutch used instead of other means when it was, in fact, the first and for a long time the only means. I also pointed out that rolling is no more a crutch than point-buy, and explained why. Then I asserted that point buy is more of a crutch than rolling, and explained why. Your last post amounts to trying to weasel out of your position in response to my posts. Like Sim Antix, I am not offended. I am impressed, however, by the lengths to which the point-buy crowd will go in order to disparage rolling. "Rolling is a crutch." Please. :rolleyes: Your side's argument is now only a hair's breadth away from "Rolling is for poopyheads".
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:07 PM	I did read it. You said 'A random set of numbers is a crutch ... for example, "SOme of us don't have to rely on random numbers on a stat - sheet in order to realize a 'different' character."' You were using crutch in the sense of the definition I gave; saying that by rolling we're relying on a substitute for realizing different characters by other means. I then questioned how it could be a crutch used instead of other means when it was, in fact, the first and for a long time the only means. I also pointed out that rolling is no more a crutch than point-buy, and explained why. Then I asserted that point buy is more of a crutch than rolling, and explained why. Your last post amounts to trying to weasel out of your position in response to my posts. Like Sim Antix, I am not offended. I am impressed, however, by the lengths to which the point-buy crowd will go in order to disparage rolling. "Rolling is a crutch." Please. :rolleyes: Your side's argument is now only a hair's breadth away from "Rolling is for poopyheads". Right. I'm glad you know what I mean better than I do. I bow to your superiour mind reading. Now I really AM done conversing with you (Portion editwed out because it offends someone. Still waiting for his apology.)
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:09 PM	I took what you said at face-value. If I did wrong, and some more insight is required, please feel free to explain what you really meant. Also, shall I report your personal attacks, or will you remove them?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:14 PM	I took what you said at face-value. If I did wrong, and some more insight is required, please feel free to explain what you really meant. Also, shall I report your personal attacks, or will you remove them? "Attacks" ? Such as telling me, in essence, that I was lying? HOw about YOU retract your attacks and allow that when I say that I mean a certain thing by what I say, that is actually what I mean? I will edit out the wortd that seems to have offended you, but I have a feeling that you aren't going to bother to change the behaviour that bothers ME, to whit, declaring that YOU know what I mean better than I do.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:16 PM	I critiqued your side's argument. You called me an arrogant jerk. I gave you an opportunity to clarify your position. You responded with ... whatever that last post was. I've been attempting to calmly and rationally take part in a debate about point-buy and rolling, always seeking agreement, and have been met every step of the way with ever more hostility and ever more ludicrous attempts to disparage rolling. What's going on here? As I said, I took your statement about crutches at face-value. If I was wrong, please feel free to explain what you really meant.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:19 PM	Moreover, I PROMTLY gave examples of OTHER things I called criutches by my definition, listing ones _I_ used, so if I was saying using a crutch was a bad thing, I was calling _Myself_ a 'poopyhead'! If I am trying to insult you, why woudl I purposely and deliber5ately tie the thing I am talking about to things ~I~ do?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:20 PM	I critiqued your side's argument. You called me an arrogant jerk. I gave you an opportunity to clarify your position. You responded with ... whatever that last post was. I've been attempting to calmly and rationally take part in a debate about point-buy and rolling, always seeking agreement, and have been met every step of the way with ever more hostility and ever more ludicrous attempts to disparage rolling. What's going on here? As I said, I took your statement about crutches at face-value. If I was wrong, please feel free to explain what you really meant. YOu tried to calmly and rationally tell me what I meant, and that what I said I meant wasn't actually what I meant, but instead that I meant what you wanted me to mean?
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:23 PM	YOu tried to calmly and rationally tell me what I meant, and that what I said I meant wasn't actually what I meant, but instead that I meant what you wanted me to mean? For the third time, I took your statement about crutches at face-value. If I was wrong, please feel free to explain what you really meant. Or, if you prefer, we can keep having this meta-argument...
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:26 PM	For the third time, I took your statement about crutches at face-value. If I was wrong, please feel free to explain what you really meant. Or, if you prefer, we can keep having this meta-argument... _I DID_. No. That does not at all mean you are not creative. Rolling is not the reason you are or are not creative. I use things as 'crutches' myself; listening to music, gathering quotes that I think the character might say, etcetera. I specifically clarified that I was not saying you were not creative, and that I didn't think that your rolling ability scores had anythign to do with wether you were or were not creative. WHat exactly is unclear about that? Look back over the last several posts and I was arguing that NEITHER point buy nor rolling make someone creative or not creative. I flat out said it, so either you are saying I am lying, or I didn't claim what you said I claimed. I think my definition of crutch, from that statement, is quite clearly not the one you used in your attack on me. You can call it semantics, but I do have a problem with you attacking me for something I did not actually say.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:30 PM	If music and quotes are crutches, and so is rolling, then is point-buy also?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:31 PM	If music and quotes are crutches, and so is rolling, then is point-buy also? ABSOLUTELY! YES!!!
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:31 PM	Then what's the point of calling anything a crutch if the definition is so radically different, and generally applicable? Why come out with "rolling is a crutch" in this conversation at all? I hope you can see where the confusion would come from, here.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:34 PM	Then what's the point of calling anything a crutch if the definition is so radically different, and generally applicable? Why come out with "rolling is a crutch" in this conversation at all? I hope you can see where the confusion would come from, here. However, when My clarification specifically rules out your interpretation, then why not ask a question, rather than telling me what I'm thinking? I don't use, and never have used, 'crutch' as a pejorative term. Its somethign you use to help you 'walk'/do something. Crutch: 1. A staff or support used by the physically injured or disabled as an aid in walking, usually designed to fit under the armpit and often used in pairs. 2. A forked leg rest on a sidesaddle. 3. A device used for assistance or support; a prop: a mnemonic crutch. 4. The crotch of a person or an animal. 5. A forked device or part. I use definition number three.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:36 PM	However, when My clarification specifically rules out your interpretation, then why not ask a question, rather than telling me what I'm thinking? Frankly, because that second statement was so different from the usual meaning of crutch, and because it was so inclusive as to not really have been (as far as I could tell) useful in the first context, I couldn't make much sense of it. So I considered only the first assertion, and took it at face-value. The later clarification served (for me) only to confuse the matter. It seemed to be quite a different definition from the first use.
Michigan 11-25-06, 07:37 PM	Sweet, Boccob people... Just play how you and yours are happy to play. Be it 4d6 drop lowest, 25-point buy, 3d6 assign to taste, 36-point buy, 18d6 drop lowest, 420-point buy, predetermined arrays, or consulting the entrails of a scarficial chicken... My group is old fashioned, we roll 3d6 in order... Str, Dex and on down the line. We're old farts, and we know it, and we don't wind up with too many M.A.D. character builds. But we are happy to play this way. It's really not too hard. I've said it before, if the game isn't fun for everyone, then maybe it shouldn't be fun for just one of you.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:38 PM	So, again, What's the point of calling anything a crutch if the definition is so radically different, and generally applicable? It seems to me that character sheets, pens, and chairs must all also be crutches. Why come out with "rolling is a crutch" in this conversation at all?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:40 PM	Frankly, because that second statement was so different from the usual meaning of crutch, and because it was so inclusive as to not really have been (as far as I could tell) useful in the first context, I couldn't make much sense of it. So I considered only the first assertion, and took it at face-value. The later clarification served (for me) only to confuse the matter. It seemed to be quite a different definition from the first use. Not usual? My meaning is even in the dictionary, its not exactly an obscure slang useage.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:41 PM	Not usual? My meaning is even in the dictionary, its not exactly an obscure slang useage. I couldn't find it. I only found the one I quoted (apart from the literal ones). I'd be interested to see it, if you'd like to post it.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:42 PM	I couldn't find it. I only found the one I quoted (apart from the literal ones). I'd be interested to see it, if you'd like to post it. Crutch: 1. A staff or support used by the physically injured or disabled as an aid in walking, usually designed to fit under the armpit and often used in pairs. 2. A forked leg rest on a sidesaddle. 3. A device used for assistance or support; a prop: a mnemonic crutch. 4. The crotch of a person or an animal. 5. A forked device or part. I use definition number three. Edit/Delete Message
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:45 PM	I use definition number three. Precisely the one I assumed you used, as you'll see if you re-read my earlier post. I even quoted it to say that that was what I was assuming you meant.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:46 PM	Wait a minute. You weren't thinking of "prop" in the sense of "stage prop", were you? In that context, the word comes from "property". Here, it's used in the sense of "propping something up". Like a crutch. To compensate for a weakness.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 07:53 PM	Precisely the one I assumed you used, as you'll see if you re-read my earlier post. I even quoted it to say that that was what I was assuming you meant. But YOU YOURSELF claimed it to fit that definition. YOu said it "Assisted or supported you" in creating a character. And given that in the statement I speciufically excluded the insulting meaning. But, whatever. Pointless smenatics. I conceeded that there was nothign wrong with it, that it was fair, any number of other things. I have argued it wasn't BALANCED, and in the sense I'm talking about, it isn't - but trying to invent from whole cloth that I am calling you a bunch of uncreative idiots is a bit much, especially when I SPECIFICALLY rule out that interpretation.
Solaris 11-25-06, 07:56 PM	Then I still have no idea why you would say rolling is a crutch. Can you explain? A crutch for what? But YOU YOURSELF claimed it to fit that definition. YOu said it "Assisted or supported you" in creating a character. No, you did. You specifically said it was a crutch relied upon for creating different characters. That was the example you used when you first brought up crutches.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:08 PM	Then I still have no idea why you would say rolling is a crutch. Can you explain? A crutch for what? No, you did. You specifically said it was a crutch relied upon for creating different characters. That was the example you used when you first brought up crutches. And in the next breath, I obviously showed that I was not using an insulting definition of Crutch, flat out stated that I was not claiming any lack of creativity from you, and then listed other things I also considered crutches. Aftert which you immediately proceeded to, in essence, tell me "You just lied and what you REALLY meant was. . ."
a_psh 11-25-06, 08:09 PM	I then questioned how it could be a crutch used instead of other means when it was, in fact, the first and for a long time the only means.Honestly, there were a lot of design mistakes in OD&D: just because something is old doesn't mean it's good. Moreover, a lot of what was nice about OD&D only really works in the context of the rest of OD&D. Rolling characters makes a lot of sense when there's a lot of fairly-high-attrition dungeon exploration, attributes and equipmet are pretty much the only way to tell your characters apart, and the game has a high degree of improvisation involved (which is how people often describe playing the "Moldvay" version). If I recall correctly, part of character creation was to roll for equipment, too. D&D3e is a lot heavier-weight. There are tons and tons and tons of decision points during character creation, which can take hours. The rules are more complex and, in most cases, more clear-cut. It's a bit more removed from wargames than older versions in some ways, but wargamier than ever in others. Like modern wargames, there's a big focus on "balance": every fight being challenging (and winnable). If nothing else, rolling for ability scores and hit points is pretty incompatible with this larger ethos of encounter-for-encounter balance. It's a poor fit as far as the rest of 3e goes. That's kinda what happens when you design a big new system and then fit in these little details from the old system that it's supposed to replace in order to make it look like it's still the old system.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:09 PM	And in the next breath, I obviously showed that I was not using an insulting definition of Crutch Then how did you mean it? The only use of that definition, in this context, has negative connotations. What is rolling a crutch for? For what weakness is it compensating? How is it metaphorically propping us up?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:10 PM	However, I am closing involvement in this thread before it GETS closed, and will say: No hard feelings on my part, and there will not be in the future, if you avoid telling me that I don't mean what I say I mean. See you elsewhere. :cool: :) :D
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:12 PM	ANd tyhe reply is to point to back up a few posts, and no matter how many times you repeat the same question wiull be to point back at the post where I specifically said that wasn't what I meant.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:12 PM	So, basically, you're refusing to answer the question, asked several times now, of what exactly you DID mean. If so, I'll have to conclude that you did mean "rolling is a crutch" in the obvious definition, and have just spent the last couple of pages backpedalling.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:17 PM	Honestly, there were a lot of design mistakes in OD&D: just because something is old doesn't mean it's good. I wasn't saying that because it was first it is good. I said that because it was the first method, and for a long time the only method, it doesn't make sense to call it a crutch or substitute for another method. That's pretty much exactly what I said.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:28 PM	So, basically, you're refusing to answer the question, asked several times now, of what exactly you DID mean. If so, I'll have to conclude that you did mean "rolling is a crutch" in the obvious definition, and have just spent the last couple of pages backpedalling. No. That does not at aqll mean you are not creative. Rolling is not the reason you are or are not creative. I use things as 'crutches' myself; listening to music, gathering quotes that I think the character might say, etcetera. Will be your only reply from now on. That made it abundantly clear that that term was not meant as a perjorative. I promptly told you exctly what it did NOT mean, and then you proceeded to tell me I in fact meant what I had just said I did not mean.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:30 PM	Why are you refusing to tell us what you DID mean? You asserted that rolling is a crutch. According to the definition you agreed upon, that has only negative connotations. Furthermore, according to that definition, there's no clear way that music or quotes can be considered crutches. I know what you claim you did not mean. We've been through it several times. What I do not know is what you did mean. And you're being awfully evasive on that matter.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:34 PM	I bloody well am not. I said earlier that it is something used as an aide. As is completely obvious from teh context of using things like songs, quotes and the likeA prop. AN aide. The Creative equivilant of a Mnemonic device. Call it whatever you will, its rather disingenuous to claim its not obvious at this point what I meant, and playign this little snarky game is tiresome. Again. . No. That does not at aqll mean you are not creative. Rolling is not the reason you are or are not creative. I use things as 'crutches' myself; listening to music, gathering quotes that I think the character might say, etcetera. Even here, you persist "WHat you 'claim' you did not mean."
dalamb 11-25-06, 08:40 PM	So, how many times has this thread changed direction? Once upon a time it was about whether anyone had tried 22 point buy. Then someone decided people who talk about point buy should be encouraged to consider rolling instead. Then a bunch of us decided flaming about each others' preferred stats generation methods would be fun. Now it's about defining meanings of words used during said flaming. I think in hindsight I should have been able to predict that the thread was dead with respect to its original purpose at the first change (which, to start another dictionary flamewar, might metaphorically be called a 'hijack'). I imagine babysamurai is long gone. I hope he got a few useful comments about his/her original question. Some smilies probably belong here somewhere, but I'm not sure whether to use ha-ha or boo-hoo ones.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:42 PM	Ok, then rolling, point-buy, pens, pencils, paper, character sheets, tables, chairs, the ability to speak, are all "crutches". If that's what you're honestly going to claim you believe, then I can't argue with you. Once again, we must simply disagree as to our definitions.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:47 PM	Ok, then rolling, point-buy, pens, pencils, paper, character sheets, tables, chairs, the ability to speak, are all "crutches". If that's what you're honestly going to claim you believe, then I can't argue with you. Once again, we must simply disagree as to our definitions. BUt in this case you are arguing what definition _I_ am using. WHich is rather presumptious of you, especially when I made clear what I meant. Again: No. That does not at aqll mean you are not creative. Rolling is not the reason you are or are not creative. I use things as 'crutches' myself; listening to music, gathering quotes that I think the character might say, etcetera.
Solaris 11-25-06, 08:50 PM	Wait. That's not what you believe? I thought we'd finally made progress here. You admitted that you think that both point-buy and rolling are crutches, and you further said you were using the word "crutch" to mean, in this context, an aid to play. By that definition, where did I go wrong in my last post?
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 08:56 PM	Wait. That's not what you believe? I thought we'd finally made progress here. You admitted that you think that both point-buy and rolling are crutches, and you further said you were using the word "crutch" to mean, in this context, an aid to play. By that definition, where did I go wrong in my last post? By expaqnding it to the point of being ridiculous, and you knjow exactly what you are doing. An aid to the creative enterprise. And as you are going to play this game of trying to define what I mean for me - no thank you, I am going to opt out. I let myself get too involved in your littke game. Bye.
LCD2YOU 11-25-06, 09:01 PM	Man, talk about changing goalposts. Solaris, what are you doing on this thread? You were the one who convinced me that some on the point buy side just can't see what they are doing. For the record: I don't like point buy. When I've let players use it in the past they promptly play Wizards or Sorcerers. The thing is rolling and point buy have their good and bad points. In every situation though, the good and bad points are personal preference. In no case is one better than the other. One thing though, point buys for making "pre-determined characters" is cheap. Yeah, you can make a concept and then roll only to find that your stats don't match the concept but I think being able to overcome that is a sign of a good role-player. It is when you overcome and adapt, not build a character and it looks like a pre-fab tract house that real creative measurers begin. My :twocents:
Solaris 11-25-06, 09:03 PM	I'm not playing a game. I do believe you've watered down the meaning of the word "crutch" so much as to make it useless as a descriptive term here, and I'm both trying to point that out, and reach some sort of agreement. I don't believe that if this was what you really meant, you would have used the word "crutch" in the first place -- it has too many obviously negative connotations, as you've seen. There wouldn't have been much point in coming out with "rolling is a crutch" at all if this was all you meant. Your subsequent "clarifications" look, to me, more like backpedalling from your original statement. But these are just my opinions, and I could be wrong. But if we're no longer arguing about whether or not rolling is a crutch, that's progress.
Stev Beren 11-25-06, 09:06 PM	I'm not playing a game. I do believe you've watered down the meaning of the word "crutch" so much as to make it useless as a descriptive term here, and I'm both trying to point that out, and reach some sort of agreement. I don't believe that if this was what you really meant, you would have used the word "crutch" in the first place -- it has too many obviously negative connotations, as you've seen. There wouldn't have been much point in coming out with "rolling is a crutch" at all if this was all you meant. Your subsequent "clarifications" look, to me, more like backpedalling from your original statement. But these are just my opinions, and I could be wrong. But if we're no longer arguing about whether or not rolling is a crutch, that's progress. I ammend my reply. Since you will only believe what you want to believe. . . my reply is now only one word: "Whatever"
ProfWhy 11-25-06, 09:50 PM	Wow... been reading through this whole thing, and I hope that a WizO steps in and closes this thread down while taking the offenders by their ears into a "time-out" situation... Edited to add: Oh, and to make this fit into the OP's post, I've never had the opportunity to use the point-buy system, but I don't see any problems with it... A 22-point buy sounds a little too low to be workable to me, though... And yes, I realize you've already moved onto high-end point-buy systems, but as I said, wanted to stick to the OP's original posting... Both point-buy and rolling have their strengths and weaknesses, and I wouldn't have a problem using either system... I'm pretty flexible, and it seems many other posters in here are as well..
WizO_Cat 11-25-06, 10:06 PM	Ok, there's way to much baiting going on in this thread. Since baiting is against the Code of Conduct, it's time to close the thread.