Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sphyre 01-30-07, 04:00 PM	Preface Every now and then I reference my stat aquisition method and the effects it has on the game for me. It's not a perfect art, but I've been very happy with the results of implementing it for over 2 years. I'm not posting this for the purpose of converting people to it, but rather simply as a reference so people know what I'm talking about. If you want to adopt it, you're certainly welcome to. I used to have a this on the boards but it was lost in the last board upgrade, so this is simply a repost. I have also had some people PM me asking where it is and I have to explain it's been lost and write it all up for them again. This system is design to give the player a lot of control in choices for their stats while still allowing ability to roll. One of my biggest problems with pointbuy is that it garuntees dump stats. With the randomness of rolling, your dump stats may vary in power, giving a little bit more fluidity to character creation. It also puts a lot of power into the player's hands in terms of customizing their character/stat aquisition method. You're given points that you can do a variety of things with, spend them on any equations you want, or you can save them for after you roll your stats to boost low scores. Another bonus of this system is that while it's still based on randomness some players will inevitably roll higher stats than others, the contingency point system allows you to boost your stats after you have rolled, and the lower the score that you spend it on, the bigger boost it gives. This means that if you rolled lower than Mr. two 18s, then your contingency points are going to be worth more overall value than his, bridging the gap a bit more. Keep in mind though, that since it's still rolling, it does have variances, and while lessened, does not remove imbalances. It does, though give the player a lot of power to be happy with their scores no matter what happens though. Remember, if all else fails, you can use the "reroll" rule if your scores aren't high enough. The System Players choose Hardcore or Softcore. Hardcore - You are assigned 7 points. You first buy equations. You assign the equations to your stats. You roll your stats. You use any remaining points, also known as contingency points. Softcore - You are assigned 6 points. You first buy equations You roll your stats. You use any remaining points, also known as contingency points. You arrange your scores as desired. The Equations: Point Cost Equation Range A 3 15+½d6(rounded down) 15-18 B 2 10+2d4 12-18 C 1 6+2d6 8-18 D 0 3d6 3-18 Contingency Points: After you have rolled a score, you can use any leftover points, known from this point on as contingency points, on boosting your scores. The amount it raises your score is based on what the score is: Score Boost 3-7 +3 8-14 +2 15-17 +1 18 +0 Old Score New Score Mod Increase 3 6 +2 4 7 +1 5 8 +2 6 9 +1 7 10 +2 8 10 +1 9 11 +1 10 12 +1 11 13 +1 12 14 +1 13 15 +1 14 16 +1 15 16 +1 16 17 +0 17 18 +1 18 18 +0 Note: If you use two contingency points on a score, you apply them separately, meaning if you have a 7, and you use a contingency point it is boosted by 3, and becomes a 10. Then you use it again, to boost it by 2, becoming a 12. Variants This system is designed to give players maximum flexibility, while still balancing the system between everyone. You may want to restrict or change around the system, any of these variants might be fun for you and and your players to try. Higher Power - Grant more points to the players. Hardcore should always give at least one more point than softcore. 9 for softcore 10 for hardcore is a pretty strong variant. Lower Power - Grant less points to players. Hardcore should always give at least one more point than softcore. 3 for softcore and 4 for hardcore is extremely low. Bonus Contingency Points - Give the players bonus contingency points that cannot be used on buying equations. Doing this helps bridge the gap between radically different rolled scores, because contingency points help the lower stat set more than the higher stat set. Only Contingency Points- Choose your favorite rolling method (3d6, 4d6 drop the lowest). Add contingency points to them to help bridge the gap between radically different scores and give players more control of their stats. No Contingency Points - Only allow rolling on the tables. Hardcore Only - Everyone rolls Hardcore. Hardcore isn't as unforgiving in this system as other straight down the line methods. This might result in a fighter with an 18 charisma, or a wizard with a 16 strength at no extra cost for the player. Really Big BBEG - Generate the BBEG with 50% more points than the players have. (For example if the players have 6 points on softcore, give the BBEG 9 softcore points) A fluid contingency point - Once, and only once, you can lessen a score by how much it would have taken to get that score (such as lowering a 13 to an 11, or a 10 to an 8) and put that contingency point gained into another score. If you think of any other fun variants, I may add it to the list. Examples Since it is a bit bulkier of a system than say... 4d6 drop the lowest arrange as desired, there might be confusion as to how it works an you may have questions. That's what this section is for so you can see it in action. I choose hardcore so I have 7 points. I'm playing a wizard so my highest score will definately be int. I'm also thinking I'll use a few ranged touch attacks so I'm going to decide that dex should be my next highest score, followed by con. Wis, Str, and Cha are all less important. I buy one A equation, and 2 C equations. This costs me 3 points for the A equation, and 1 point each for each C equations and 3 D equations for no points, totalling to 5 points. This leaves me 2 contingency points. I assign my equations to stats: Str - D Dex - C Con - C Int - A Wis - D Cha - D I now roll my Str which is 3d6, and I come out with a 13. I roll my Dex which is 6+2d6 and get a 14 I roll my Con which is 6+2d6 and unfortunately get an 8 I roll my Int which is ½d6(rounded down) get a 17 I roll my Wis which is 3d6 and get a 7. I roll my Cha which is 3d6 and get an 11 I have two contingency points to use. I know I want to use at least one on my con, because i rolled minimum on that. That increases it to 10. Now this is where the decision gets tough. I rolled a 7 for wisdom, and can boost that to 10, having no negative stats. I have a 10 in con, when I'd rather have that higher in case I get hit. I also have a 17 in int, which I could boost that to an 18. The choice is yours and yours alone. I'd probably go 18 int or boost the wisdom to increase my will save and senses by two. It's really a choice of whether you want to boost your assets or mimize your weaknesses. Either way, this system has created a very useable wizard while also allowing it to be non-stereotypical in references to having str as a dump stat. I choose softcore so I have 6 points. I buy equations, buying 5 Cs for one point each, and 1 D for 0 points, netting me with 1 point left over. I roll 6+2d6 5 times, and 3d6 once, and get the following array: 14, 15, 18, 10, 11, 5. I have a contingency point so I spend it on the 5, boosting it to an 8. I have the following array now: 18, 15, 14, 11, 10, 8. I take these scores and arrange as desired.
Joe Outside 02-05-07, 03:59 AM	I like this--I'm putting it in my big book o' housrules.
Gideon_Gideonson 02-11-07, 07:49 PM	Same here...I might also use this for the system revision I'm working on...that okay with you?
Sphyre 02-12-07, 02:44 AM	Yeah, go ahead. Glad to hear that at least some people like it :) I'm willing to bet more don't like it than do though.
Otto the Bugbear 02-12-07, 06:26 PM	It's well done and is easy to read, but it is very complex. That'll turn people off.
Sphyre 02-12-07, 06:45 PM	I simply can't see it as that complex. Sure it's not just straight 3d6 - but most people have a problem with that, don't they? I'm thinking I get a lot of people thinking it's so complex is that one can choose hardcore or softcore. I mean I don't know how you can understand Vancian spell casting, but not this... this is like 1+1 compared to that. I mean what's so hard about rolling equations? The concept is easy, the more you spend on a stat the higher it is. 2d4+10 is no harder to roll than 3d6... :rolleyes: Yes, I agree that it's intimidating but not very complex.
Mufflon 02-12-07, 08:00 PM	I haven't quite done all the math yet, but it would seem that this system favours the math inclined players; since I am quite sure that there is an optimal formula somewhere in there.
Otto the Bugbear 02-12-07, 09:22 PM	I simply can't see it as that complex. Sure it's not just straight 3d6 - but most people have a problem with that, don't they? It's not that complex, but it certainly is more complex than the standard PHB. In fact, it is more complex enough that people would shy away from it. I mean I don't know how you can understand Vancian spell casting, but not this It really has nothing to do with being more complex than vancian casting or not. I has to do with being that much more complex than 4d6-L or point buy. Some of it also boils down to how often people are creating new characters v. the complexity of figuring out ability scores. Making characters doesn't come up that often (I would hope), so people will be prone to stick with the more simple methods that they have already memorized how to do (4d6-L or point buy). It doesn't look that bad to me. I'm just explaining the why of people not liking/using it. Cheers Otto :)
starfire311 02-12-07, 10:29 PM	one thing I like it very much, and as a player would not mind playing in a game using it, but I would not use it as a DM, too much variablity for me, I want the players to be as balanced as possible.
Sphyre 02-13-07, 12:09 AM	I haven't quite done all the math yet, but it would seem that this system favours the math inclined players; since I am quite sure that there is an optimal formula somewhere in there. Actually, I did some math on the formulas. I used calculus at one point to prove that the choosing a 1 point equation over a 0 point equation was like 1.5 over the previous. And the 2 point over the 1, the 3 point over the 2 point, and the 3 point over the 2 point all had the same value... Which means if there's any imbalance, it's in the fact that contingency points are worth more at the lower end, while equations are worth more on the higher end. In my experience with it, it's pretty close to no matter what you choose, each point is worth about the same in the end. one thing I like it very much, and as a player would not mind playing in a game using it, but I would not use it as a DM, too much variablity for me, I want the players to be as balanced as possible. Pretty much the only way to do that is have some sort of complete pointbuy. Rolling has variability. If you want to have absolute balance then you need to remove all randomness.
starfire311 02-13-07, 08:38 AM	Pretty much the only way to do that is have some sort of complete pointbuy. Rolling has variability. If you want to have absolute balance then you need to remove all randomness. This is not true actually... You can randomly determine stats and still assure party balance, you will not assure a spcific power level, you amy end up with really high stats or really low stats, but everyone will have really high stats or really low stats.
Sphyre 02-13-07, 01:12 PM	This is not true actually... You can randomly determine stats and still assure party balance, you will not assure a spcific power level, you amy end up with really high stats or really low stats, but everyone will have really high stats or really low stats. Are you refering to Otto's Random Arroy? Because that's a little different than everyone rolling 4d6 drop the lowest. That's rolling the same stats for everyone - almost like everyone agreeing on a certain array of stats. With my 2 years experience with this method, it decreases the variance between players to less than my experience with 4d6 drop the lowest. I don't know what a player or DM could want more than that, short of giving everyone the same scores or pointbuy. (both of which I would prefer not to do)
starfire311 02-13-07, 01:59 PM	Are you refering to Otto's Random Arroy? Because that's a little different than everyone rolling 4d6 drop the lowest. That's rolling the same stats for everyone - almost like everyone agreeing on a certain array of stats. With my 2 years experience with this method, it decreases the variance between players to less than my experience with 4d6 drop the lowest. I don't know what a player or DM could want more than that, short of giving everyone the same scores or pointbuy. (both of which I would prefer not to do) Otto's system is just one of many random stat generation system that can be used to generate balanced parties. And yes as a DM I would prefer point but or simply just giving out the elite array than a system that creates disparity between the players.
Sphyre 02-13-07, 02:28 PM	I find it interesting that you don't mind a random method if you're the player - so you could be a little better or a little worse than someone - but as a DM you insist that it has to be perfect. It affects you more as a player than as a DM...
starfire311 02-13-07, 04:59 PM	I find it interesting that you don't mind a random method if you're the player - so you could be a little better or a little worse than someone - but as a DM you insist that it has to be perfect. It affects you more as a player than as a DM... As a player I would prefer it were balanced as well, and unless it is just a beer and pretzels type game I would probably pass on any game using pure random stat generation. I am much more willing to oblige the DM as a player, because if he wants to use a semi-random system, like yours, and he thinks it will be mroe fun, and if the other players would rather do it, you have created a system I can live with, actually more than live with, hence I like it as a player, but not as a DM, I think I should have a bit more imput on the character generation method used as a DM than as a player, that is all. Although, I always strive to use a character generation system that will make everyone happy.
Sphyre 02-14-07, 12:05 AM	I agree with that sentiment. If my group ever said "I don't like this method" I'd ask them what they would like instead. I'm glad that hasn't come up yet, and I've actually gotten a lot of compliments from them on the system. My players in my current campaign just finished a 7 month story arc. They defeated the BBEG, they saved the "pocket plane" that half the party was from, and they were awarded 1 contingency point to add to their characters as a reward for finishing the story arc - esspecially without not even one person dying (against illithids, ulitharids, and Urophions, none-the-less) due to good preparation, witty thinking, and good teamwork. I wanted to try the "6 point +1 extra contingency point" alternate for my current game, so this was one way to try it. One character's life motivations have been satisfied, and she is a druid that wants to spend the rest of her days enjoying the natural world she saved, rather than continue adventuring. The player has chosen to make a new character with the same "6 point +1 extra contingency point" alternate method and the stats still look in line with everyone elses - so it's still working well for us :)
Charidan 04-16-07, 07:28 PM	As a player I would prefer it were balanced as well, and unless it is just a beer and pretzels type game I would probably pass on any game using pure random stat generation. I am much more willing to oblige the DM as a player, because if he wants to use a semi-random system, like yours, and he thinks it will be mroe fun, and if the other players would rather do it, you have created a system I can live with, actually more than live with, hence I like it as a player, but not as a DM, I think I should have a bit more imput on the character generation method used as a DM than as a player, that is all. Although, I always strive to use a character generation system that will make everyone happy. So what you're saying Starfire is that as a player you don't mind being awesomely powerful but as a DM you want to keep your players weak and in check. To Sphyre: I believe this is a great system and will use it in my next game. The only thing I think could really use a modification doesn't even change functionality. That thing is that the A-type formula is "15+1/2d6 (rounded down)". You could simplify this by saying "15+1d3". Just a thought to keep it pretty, as half-dice seems scary to some people. Just that change will clear it up for them and make it seem that much more usable, but as I said it doesn't change anything. A d3 IS half a d6.
Sphyre 04-16-07, 07:58 PM	To Sphyre: I believe this is a great system and will use it in my next game. The only thing I think could really use a modification doesn't even change functionality. That thing is that the A-type formula is "15+1/2d6 (rounded down)". You could simplify this by saying "15+1d3". Just a thought to keep it pretty, as half-dice seems scary to some people. Just that change will clear it up for them and make it seem that much more usable, but as I said it doesn't change anything. A d3 IS half a d6. Actually, if you'll notice, there's 2 dice in every equation (with exception to D), that makes the low end and the high end less likely. A - 13+1d3+1d2 (was later changed to 1/2 of 1d6 rounded down because it's the same statistical outcome but a bit easier since it's a die everyone has) B - 10+2d4 C - 6 + 2d6 15+1d3 is 16-18 with a 33% chance of a 16, a 33% chance of a 17 and a 33% chance of an 18, while 15+1/2 d6(rounded down) is 15-18 with a 16.7% chance of an 18, 16.7% chance of a 15, a 33% chance of a 16 and a 33% chance of a 17. There is a big mathematical difference. 1d3 is half a d6 when you round up, but not down.
Charidan 04-17-07, 01:27 AM	Oh right, it could round to 0. Okay, I'll go shoot myself now. And warn my players of that, FAST!
Sphyre 04-17-07, 03:23 AM	Oh right, it could round to 0. Okay, I'll go shoot myself now. And warn my players of that, FAST! lol That one detail was the deal breaker, huh? :tongue:
starfire311 04-17-07, 08:22 AM	So what you're saying Starfire is that as a player you don't mind being awesomely powerful but as a DM you want to keep your players weak and in check. Yeah, that is exactly what I said, way to troll.
RobbyPants 04-17-07, 11:51 AM	I don't know if I'd use this system in my games, but I like the idea behind it. Yes, I agree that it's intimidating but not very complex. One nice thing I'm glad you included was the examples. This, and the walkthrough in the examples, made it easier to understand.
Sphyre 04-17-07, 02:57 PM	One nice thing I'm glad you included was the examples. This, and the walkthrough in the examples, made it easier to understand. Yeah. Not many people have a linear point thought process. It's a lot easier to understand once you see how it works than by following the rules. It's just a lot more intuative when you actually see someone doing it. I remember when I was told how to roll stats (4d6 drop the lowest 7 times drop the lowest score) when I was introduced to D&D I had to be shown how to do it. But considering it's so widespread now, if you say 4d6 x7 people just assume you're dropping the lowest die for each score, and the last score due to their innate familiarity with it. I actually designed it with softcore, but thought it would be neat to throw hardcore in there, and that made it a bit more complex because how you arrange your scores are so radically different - but since it's completely at the option of the player to choose hardcore or softcore, it doesn't hurt it at all by giving another option.
Charidan 04-19-07, 02:37 PM	lol That one detail was the deal breaker, huh? :tongue: No, I'd already sent them the rules but with the d3 instead. I had to fix it. Yeah, that is exactly what I said, way to troll. Ok, at least you know it. But considering it's so widespread now, if you say 4d6 x7 people just assume you're dropping the lowest die for each score, and the last score due to their innate familiarity with it. No, I'd roll 4d6 and keep them all. DMs must watch this or their players will take advantage of it. Sorry to burst your happy bubble, but be careful. Most PCs are at least partially munchkins and will use cheap hits (such as just saying 4d6 and implying the drop lowest) to make themselves stronger. Plus, some DMs really do mean keep all 4d6.
starfire311 04-19-07, 04:32 PM	Ok, at least you know it. lol, did you even read what I posted or did you jsut come here to troll. I said as a player I would prefer a more balanced system... this, to you, means I want to be awesomely powerful. and as a DM I want to keep it as balanced as possible... this, to you, means that I want to keep the players weak and in check. the amazing thing is that one doesnt even follow from the other, are you suggesting that Sphere's system produces awesomly powerful cahracters, while PB produces weak characters.
Sphyre 04-20-07, 12:45 AM	No, I'd roll 4d6 and keep them all. DMs must watch this or their players will take advantage of it. Sorry to burst your happy bubble, but be careful. Most PCs are at least partially munchkins and will use cheap hits (such as just saying 4d6 and implying the drop lowest) to make themselves stronger. Plus, some DMs really do mean keep all 4d6. Burst my happy bubble? The first rule I give my players is "don't be a douche." If you're going to deliberately try to take things out of context. I much prefer a friendly atmosphere where we're all trying to have fun, rather than try to create a player vs player or player vs DM issue. I just simply wouldn't invite anyone who was more interested in playing fairly and for fun back to my game. There's no big conspiracy, and there doesn't need to be. On the subject of starfire311, I don't beleive s/he was here to troll. I beleive the intention of the post that Charidan quoted was misinterpretted. I can sympathize with the fact that the first time I DMed and someone had different stats than someone else, and one of the players tried to make me feel like the badguy because someone's stats were lower than another's. I don't get that now, but I can sympathize with trying to keep everyone on the same terms so you cannot be accused of bias.
Charidan 04-20-07, 01:16 AM	Starfire311: Okay maybe I exaggerated a little bit to get the point out from under the table but you did know what I was talking about. Plus I never implied anything about the strength of the rolling systems, you added that one in yourself. Sphyre: I wasn't trying to make it player vs. DM, I was merely pointing out a flaw in your logic and there was no way I could have known all your house rules you play with anyway. See, I'm kind of a.. Oh who am I kidding I am both a geek and a munchkin (to some extent on the second one) and the opportunity to both pump up my character's stats and simultaneously make fun of a DM's grammar and missing implications is just too much to resist. Mostly I was throwing a bit of harsh reality into our happy fantasy world. Also: I'm not quite sure but I have a really good guess that Charidan is male. Not sure why, just a really strong gut feeling.
TheDarkLord 04-20-07, 02:34 AM	I have to say, as an avid hater of the standard DMG point buy, I like this system Sphyre, Good job. Granted it doesn't fix the problems of balance, but it is a good way to get characters you want with rolling. The only thing I might change is having that 3 point cost be 12+1d6, or 14+1d4. That D3 or 1/2d6 has never set right for me. Way to go.
starfire311 04-20-07, 08:32 AM	On the subject of starfire311, I don't beleive s/he was here to troll. I beleive the intention of the post that Charidan quoted was misinterpretted Sorry, Sphyre, Didn't want to clutter up your threaad with needless bickering. It just really got under my skin, that in the 1st post that I have ever seen by him, I get called a hypocrit. I will let it drop, I really don't need to defend my line of thought on that matter anymore. Anyway, I am gonna be running a one shot, perhaps a two shot, in the near future. I think I will discuss using your system with my group, just give it a spin and see what happens, since it won't be a longterm game, and we won't have to live with it too long if people don't like it. I will let you know what they think.
Sphyre 04-20-07, 06:59 PM	Sphyre: I wasn't trying to make it player vs. DM, I was merely pointing out a flaw in your logic and there was no way I could have known all your house rules you play with anyway. See, I'm kind of a.. Oh who am I kidding I am both a geek and a munchkin (to some extent on the second one) and the opportunity to both pump up my character's stats and simultaneously make fun of a DM's grammar and missing implications is just too much to resist. Mostly I was throwing a bit of harsh reality into our happy fantasy world. A flaw in my logic? Yeah, I guess so. I was assuming that many people on the WotC forums were intelligent, rational and had some common sense.. but people generally are stupid and won't look for meaning in what you say, but rather attack you because they'd rather make an argument because what you said could be interpretted more than one way if you stuck a stick in your rear. Also: I'm not quite sure but I have a really good guess that Charidan is male. Not sure why, just a really strong gut feeling. Do you mean Starfire311? I would prefer not to assume. It doesn't matter other than the english language requiring you to specify one when refering to someone in second person. I have to say, as an avid hater of the standard DMG point buy, I like this system Sphyre, Good job. Granted it doesn't fix the problems of balance, but it is a good way to get characters you want with rolling. The only thing I might change is having that 3 point cost be 12+1d6, or 14+1d4. That D3 or 1/2d6 has never set right for me. The second equation is 10+2d4, using the third as 12+1d6 wouldn't really be worth another point imho. Like I said, these equations were tested with calculus to show that each point is worth the same amount over the previous equation. If you want to do another, equation, go ahead - i would just suggest picking something a bit more worth it than 12+1d6, 14+1d4 is much better. (I like the spread being 16.7% for 15, 33% for 16, 33% for 17, 16.7% for 18 more than 25% for any given 15-18, but that's upto you) [QUOTE=TheDarkLord;12157614]Way to go. Thanks :) Sorry, Sphyre, Didn't want to clutter up your threaad with needless bickering. It just really got under my skin, that in the 1st post that I have ever seen by him, I get called a hypocrit. I will let it drop, I really don't need to defend my line of thought on that matter anymore. And rightfully so. I don't agree with how your quote was taken out of context and you were called a troll. You don't have to defend your line of thought, I did it for you too :) You were responding in a positive manner, and I appriciated reading your posts. Anyway, I am gonna be running a one shot, perhaps a two shot, in the near future. I think I will discuss using your system with my group, just give it a spin and see what happens, since it won't be a longterm game, and we won't have to live with it too long if people don't like it. I will let you know what they think. Cool.
Arcade 04-21-07, 07:36 AM	I've been analyzing this system because I think it's very promising and it mirrors efforts that I've been looking into. But I'd like to convince myself of the value of the equations. I'm putting them through the ringer myself, but I'd be very interested in the math you used to generate them. Care to share?
Charidan 04-26-07, 12:04 AM	Sorry, Sphyre, Didn't want to clutter up your threaad with needless bickering. It just really got under my skin, that in the 1st post that I have ever seen by him, I get called a hypocrit. Don't worry, that was my first post ever. :D I have no idea if that's supposed to make things better or worse or why I even bothered mentioning it, but it was really compelling to do so. Do you mean Starfire311? I would prefer not to assume. It doesn't matter other than the English language requiring you to specify one when referring to someone in second person. No, I was really cryptically referring to myself in the third person as if I wasn't sure. Sorry for any confusion, but you said s/he so I thought I clear it up in a fuzzy way. I guess I was too fuzzy and not enough clear.
Runepriest 04-28-07, 09:54 AM	No, I was really cryptically referring to myself in the third person as if I wasn't sure. Sorry for any confusion, but you said s/he so I thought I clear it up in a fuzzy way. I guess I was too fuzzy and not enough clear. ROTFLOL
Sorentia 04-28-07, 09:55 PM	I presented this system to my players for future use. They were confused at first on how it works, but once I walked them threw it and rolled up a charactor and showed them how you can use the system to get your good scores were you want them they were hooked.
Runepriest 04-28-07, 11:50 PM	Did 10-point hardcore and got the following stats for a Soulknife//Fighter Gestalt Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 10. Well rounded character with no penalties.
keyunp 04-29-07, 10:43 AM	Did a 7 point hardcore for a Crusader/Monk gesault and got Str 16 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 18 Chr 17
Sphyre 04-29-07, 03:54 PM	I presented this system to my players for future use. They were confused at first on how it works, but once I walked them threw it and rolled up a charactor and showed them how you can use the system to get your good scores were you want them they were hooked. Glad to hear it. Enjoy :)
starfire311 04-29-07, 04:00 PM	Did a 7 point hardcore for a Crusader/Monk gesault and got Str 16 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 18 Chr 17 that is significantly better than I would expect, how many times did you roll? but I guess it is definatly possible.
Runepriest 04-29-07, 04:14 PM	I used more points and got worse results than him. I did 1 A for Con and 2 B's for Dex and Str and 3 D's for mentals. Rolled the stats 15, 14, 16, 13, 11, 10. contingency on Str, Dex, and Wis
Arcade 04-29-07, 04:17 PM	Yeah, if people put sample results down, put the 3d6 results and what you spent your points on down with it so we can realize if it's an average roll or luck of the draw. Runepriest's rolls look like they are 4d6 rolls, not 3d6.
Runepriest 04-29-07, 04:20 PM	No, I did 3 3d6, 2 10+2d4, and 1 15+1/2 of a d6.
Charidan 04-30-07, 01:45 AM	Ah, a most interesting dilemma. How the %#&$ did Keyunp get better stats with only 3 points? I think it may be that I had to question the usefulness of the A formula. Very useful if you really want a few awesome stats, but a really crappy idea if you want overall good stats. If you just want good stats, I found it's usually better to go for a B and have an extra contingency point. If you have more contingency points, bad stats aren't as bad because they boost higher. If you really wanted too, I'd bet there's a formula somewhere about roughly what it's actually worth and how much you care about contingency points vs. the formula's. Sphyre says he's done them and their about the same, and he may be right, but it depends on what you are looking for. This may bias the results.
Sphyre 04-30-07, 03:36 AM	Ah, a most interesting dilemma. How the %#&$ did Keyunp get better stats with only 3 points? I think it may be that I had to question the usefulness of the A formula. Very useful if you really want a few awesome stats, but a really crappy idea if you want overall good stats. If you just want good stats, I found it's usually better to go for a B and have an extra contingency point. If you have more contingency points, bad stats aren't as bad because they boost higher. If you really wanted too, I'd bet there's a formula somewhere about roughly what it's actually worth and how much you care about contingency points vs. the formula's. Sphyre says he's done them and their about the same, and he may be right, but it depends on what you are looking for. This may bias the results. Did a 7 point hardcore for a Crusader/Monk gesault and got Str 16 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 18 Chr 17 Those are exceptional stats for 7 points. Like I said, there are always flukes. The nice thing about this system is that even if someone gets better than you overall, you still have stats that you'll be happy with. Like I said I've been using this system for more than 2 years, and I've never seen the results keyunp got. Either it was really lucky, or it's possible the system wasn't followed correctly. I guess that just further emphasizes the fact that if you don't like variances in character stats then don't roll.
Charidan 04-30-07, 03:12 PM	Agreed. It's still an interesting question I'd like to find out the answer to though. Time to go get a life now... Oh too late, they're all sold out. Oh well, time to go start about 5 more D+D games then. :D
Charidan 05-18-07, 08:58 PM	Leaving this back to the actual topic of the rolling system, I believe a found an ideal way to do use it so that it's almost impossible to be unsatisfied. (there is always a chance of total suck rolls, this just has a smaller chance.) Step 1: Pick Hardcore Step 2: Buy 6 D equations Step 3: Apply your 7 points where needed Works every time!
The_Jew 11-10-07, 01:35 PM	well either way i have a newbie campaign coming up and i think i will start them on this it seems like a better option than what i normally do. I used to give the new guys one free 18 to replace there lowest score, this was to give them a greater survival chance, while they learned the ropes from the more experienced players, it seems to get my players to understand things a lot better, well except that i am the party mage when not dming and our only other mage is one of the newbies so he has to learn from the casters that try and kill them. Either way Danke for the new rolling system i can give my newbies a few extra contingency points and that will create a balance without having to give away a free 18