Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 07:47 AM	your standard 15 point buy is not much different than the "standard" NPC rolled 3d6 keep all. This was something another thread "Is it my fault" started me thinking about. On an "average" set of rolls, the stats for 3d6 would look something like this: 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12 Which is a 15 point build. Using an average set of rolls in a 4d6, drop the lowest die, the stats would look something like this: 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 14 Which is a 28 point build. So here's the question: How much should the ECL of a PC be raised if they are built or rolled on a 28 point or even 35 point build? Here's a "35 point build". As the 28 point build but allow the player to change out one 14 stat with a 17. The other question is about players who actually roll up characters with 4d6 and they look something like this: 12, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18 That is a 55 point build. What ECL should they be? One thing I was thinking was not raising the competition, save using them much more intelligently, but re-evaluating the EXP awards from encounters based on their "real ECL".
astute1 02-13-06, 08:13 AM	I use 28 point buy. It seems to work out fairly well. I play in another campaign with 25 point buy, it also works out fine. 32 point buy is a fairly big bump, however. I'm not sure that it's worth a +1 level adjustment, but you've got to keep in mind that 32 point characters are much stronger than 25 or even 28 point characters. The only major drawback with point buy is that min/maxers can really take advantage of the system. I find this problem to be most pronounced in wizards and druids, as nearly every other class will want a decent str, dex, and con. Most people in the campaign I'm DMing went with something like 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 or 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 for their stats. The wizard went with 18, 15, 10, 8, 8, 8 (I think that's right) with the 8's in Str, Dex, and Cha.
ShadowDragon8685 02-13-06, 08:17 AM	It's probably not much of an issue, to be honest. It'll apply some KY jelly to the usually painful experiance of first level, butter-up the next three levels, and by fifth level is just a little icing on the cake. It never stops being icing on the cake, but that's all it is.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 08:22 AM	To tell the truth, I use the 4d6, drop lowest. The PCs can be quite powerful. The caveat is they must play the character. Killing them off in a stupid fashion only makes them get a new character with the exact same stats, in whatever order they want. Watching them intelligently tryng to off a character they think is "substandard" can be really fun to watch.
Ut-Napishtim 02-13-06, 10:23 AM	I would say 35 and up might warrant a +1 LA in some games. The 25-32 are all in the nieghborhood of the standard 28 though and probably wouldn't warrant one IMHO. If you're talking about going back and figuring how many points players got from what they rolled, I wouldn't start slapping LA's on them. Getting lucky on the rolls is part of the fun of the game, being slapped with an LA wouldn't be. If you're talking about a game where you're offering different point levels then I would say a +1 LA should be 10 over whatever you're using. For example, in the case of my game (4d6 or 28 point buy - player's choice) I could (theoretically) also offer a 38 point buy at the cost of +1 LA. That'd have to be a point buy only game though, since someone who rolled well could unfairly bypass the system.
UltimateReality 02-13-06, 10:32 AM	25-32 are all in the nieghborhood of the standard 28 though and probably wouldn't warrant oneQuoted because I agree with it. 32 point buy allows MAD characters to not suck as much; SAD characters can easily get away with only a 28. We've switched over to 32pb recently after my DM witnessed some widely disparate dice rolling (player one rolls a total mod of +12, player two rolls just above a reroll). He decided that point buy might be closer to what he was looking for. Me, I love it because it allows me to customize my character exactly how I want. As for slapping LAs on them...I wouldn't worry about it until you hit 40-45 pb, which is the average we got using 5d6 drop the lowest 2.
Epicweaver 02-13-06, 11:06 AM	I would say 35 and up might warrant a +1 LA in some games. The 25-32 are all in the nieghborhood of the standard 28 though and probably wouldn't warrant one IMHO. If you're talking about going back and figuring how many points players got from what they rolled, I wouldn't start slapping LA's on them. Getting lucky on the rolls is part of the fun of the game, being slapped with an LA wouldn't be. If you're talking about a game where you're offering different point levels then I would say a +1 LA should be 10 over whatever you're using. For example, in the case of my game (4d6 or 28 point buy - player's choice) I could (theoretically) also offer a 38 point buy at the cost of +1 LA. That'd have to be a point buy only game though, since someone who rolled well could unfairly bypass the system. I don't think the point of the thread was to assign level adjustments to any characters, only to help adjust encounter levels to accomodate for the more powerful party. Personally, I put my group of four 8th level (32pt, 27K starting wealth) plus one 6th level NPC cleric as an EPL 9 base, and that seems to work okay for my planning purposes. Does anyone have any data to suggest boosting the base party EL based on higher point buys?
FriendoftheDork 02-13-06, 11:09 AM	15 PB is standard for NPCs only, 25 PB is standard for PCs. 28 is slightly better and probably my favorite. I used to play 32 and even 36 for high power games, but now I like the lower ones alot better as even a 16 in a stat means something and 18 is really exceptional within the party. Also, most encounters are balanced for 25 and not 30s. Higher stats really does matter in a fight. The only drawback with 25 PB is that some of my players dumps charisma and that they are forced to have an odd number. Of course one of them did make a dwarf fighter with 10 charisma with just 25 PB, and I try to reward him with better NPC reactions.
torchflame 02-13-06, 11:15 AM	I almost always have to adjust encounter levels for my parties. I tend to run fairly high powered campaigns, though, hordes of monsters, truly horrendous BBEGs and so on. I use "4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll 1s and 2s" approach, and it almost Always gets characters at least +1 ECL. Well, one time someone rolled really badly and got some 9s and 10s, but I digress. [Edit: Bear in mind that I usually only have 3 people, if i had five or six, I'd do away with the re-rolls]
steenan 02-13-06, 11:16 AM	How much should the ECL of a PC be raised if they are built or rolled on a 28 point or even 35 point build? As you wrote yourself, 28 point buy is equivalent to normal method of rolling (4d6, keep 3). Obviously, you shouldn't modify such character's ECL. Character built with 35 point buy is probably equivalent to ECL+1. I'm not sure, because I never played nor DM'ed for such a character, but we are playing on 32 point buy and it effectively gives about ECL+0.5 The other question is about players who actually roll up characters with 4d6 and they look something like this: 12, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18 That is a 55 point build. What ECL should they be? That's how the dice work - after all, you have your players rolling instead of using point buy to add some randomnes. You shouldn't penalize player for having luck (unless you informed him before rolling that high rolls will bring ECL increase). That's why I use pointbuy.
Epicweaver 02-13-06, 11:18 AM	The only drawback with 25 PB is that some of my players dumps charisma and that they are forced to have an odd number. Of course one of them did make a dwarf fighter with 10 charisma with just 25 PB, and I try to reward him with better NPC reactions. Personally, I generally require my players to do some detail work on any subpar (9 or less) ability score... Rounding all scores at 10, and then buying up is fine... but sacrificing 3 scores to have an 18 in Str or Int just requires more work in my campaigns. Charisma 8 might seem easy, but forcing the player to come up with a plausible repulsive personality/appearance trait gives more light to the 'unbalanced 18/15/12/8/8/8' characters. And I always roll my eyes when a player decides to try to hide behind the RP excuse "attractive, but quiet" routine... I say give them horrid body odor! ;) Anyways... I'm sure this was off-topic, so I apologize. :)
Cantankerous 02-13-06, 11:38 AM	The 28 point buy I've been asigning the equivalent of a +1ECL. With a 32 (or 35) I assigned a +2 and it worked quite well also. With a 55 I'd make it no less than +3 and probably +4 if there were any other aspects that pushed it higher; effectively making a 55 point buy a +3.5 ECL. For instance I might go with a a total +5 ECL for a 55 point buy and a two level increase in requisite wealth, as long as it pertained well to the primary opposition. So, an otherwise standard dwarven 2nd level character with a 55 point build and mastrwrk Longsword with Goblinoid Bane on it, a +1 set of Full Plate and another 650 gp worth of possessions would be a ECL*7 vs Goblins and ECL*6 otherwise. He bloody well should be too though. He'd have stats through the roof and a enough extra zing to make him a very definate threat to Goblinoid opponents. He'd likely be worth a CR*7 if HE were the monster against a group of goblinoid PCs, so it works out. Built well he'd be a terror. Great saves very likely, a ton of damage potential and while he wouldn't have alot of dice, he might well have such a high Con that it would make up for it. This guy could be very well a straight up challenge for a CR*3 creature, which alone, a PC of ECL*7 should be. On stat dumps, it depends on the campaign. Mine would dump Wisdom or Dexterity before Charisma for the most part. Isshia
JulesCARV 02-13-06, 11:39 AM	8 isn't amazingly repulsive, any more than 13 is stunningly persuasive. Now, 6 charisma (the lowest point buy for a dwarf) is as rare as 15, and is thus probably notably repellent. I think that playing a 15 point build, or a 3d6 keep all, based character campaign could be very interesting. It would require rebalancing to be sure, but would it require more rebalancing than, say, gestalt? Probably getting players who are interested in playing such unheroic PCs AND a DM who wants to do all the work of rebalancing encounters would be a rare combination, but it'd be kinda interesting to see a module written for 15 point/3d6 builds. Paladins would be completely unplayable in such a campaign, though.
Zetakya 02-13-06, 12:12 PM	Cleric, Paladin and Monk are the classes that gain the most from higher point buy. Almost every tale of woe over Clerics being overpowered is a result of the use of high point buy. One of the other factors about higher totals or higher point buy is the accessability of Feats. INT13 for Combat Expertise for a Fighter in a 25 point game is a deliberate investment of a significant degree of overall power. INT13 for Combat Expertise for a Fighter in a 35 point game is approaching throwaway status.
Kadasbrass 02-13-06, 01:41 PM	I've had to switch to a point buy because we've had to many cases of people who seem to have "good luck" with the dice and I don't feel like wasting my time watching them all. Though I've now set it to a 36 point buy (since its going to be more difficult campaign), its still more balanced then the old system they used. They orginally had it set so you could roll between 2 and 5 sets of seven numbers each, drop the lowest dice each roll and the lowest number from each set. It was just too much deciding which was real and which numbers were fake. Yet with a 36 point buy they still whine like :censored: babies :nonono:
chiefcastor 02-13-06, 01:56 PM	In my game I use 28 point buy for the players. I make NPCs with 25 point buy and boss NPCs with 28 point buy. Some of the players complained that it was too low. Then they changed their minds and liked the game being more challenging. Having high stats really affects the game especially at low levels.
danielinthewolvesden 02-13-06, 01:58 PM	25 point buy is standard, and 28 point buy is not a big difference, and even reflects an average "4D6 drop one" set of rolls. So, no adjustment there. 32pt buy is marginal, likely no adjustment called for. I am in such a game, and it's quite deadly. (a 32 point buy is more or less a +2, and a race with one +2 doesn;t get an LA adjustment usually) If a player gets lucky and rolls up straight 18s- then he's just plain lucky- no adjustment called for. But ah, yes- the 36 point buy. I'd adjust down the loot a bit, instead of increasing the ECL. (that's what I do, they get starting wealth from the dMG one "chart" down) I'd guess the 36 point buy is a full ECL worth, but just barely- remember, it's only two +2 adjustments. Aasimar has 2x +2 adjustments, Darkvision, several nice elemental resistances, and a few other minor goodies- and it's very weak for an LA+1 race. Folks with a 15 point build simply aren't heroic. At that point level, you're talking FIVE -2s! Any race that had -2 on 5 abilities would be considered HUGELY handicapped. With those stats, you'd better hand out something real nice in the way of a powr or a serious magic item for each.
Cantankerous 02-13-06, 04:20 PM	Folks with a 15 point build simply aren't heroic. At that point level, you're talking FIVE -2s! Any race that had -2 on 5 abilities would be considered HUGELY handicapped. With those stats, you'd better hand out something real nice in the way of a powr or a serious magic item for each. Ahhhh Daniel, a 15 point build IS the standard for NPCs. It is the 10, 10, 10, 11,11,11 that all non-elite NPCs are based on unless you rework their stats. Isshia
UltimateReality 02-13-06, 04:35 PM	Cleric, Paladin and Monk are the classes that gain the most from higher point buy.Bards and rogues (especially skill monkeys) don't come out of it too shabby either. Paladins and monks are notoriously MAD, though. with a 36 point buy they still whineGive it a bit of time. Our group complained wildly about 32 point buy (remember, we'd just done a "5d6 drop the lowest 2" campaign) when we introduced it. They eventually adjusted, and have even gone as low as 30 pb without complaint. they changed their minds and liked the game being more challengingThis is exactly how I came to like point buy -- that and the customization. From a DM's perspective, it makes everything a hell of a lot easier to balance too. The party starts on equal footing. When I DM with 32 pb for PCs, my "standard" NPCs that I stat out are made with elite array (aka 25 point buy), and my specials are made with 28. I used to make them with 32, but found that tactics and situation could more than make up for those 4 points.
JulesCARV 02-13-06, 04:56 PM	What if people are heroes because they show extraordinary moral fortitude, selflessness, and compassion for others, not because they're strongers, smarter, or tougher than the average? Isn't that the whole idea of LotR? Frodo isn't a great warrior or a powerful wizard. He isn't all that smart. The reason he triumphs where Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Boromir, or any of the other powerful, strong, warrior types would likely have failed is because he has the integrity and decency to carry out a mission that has immense powers to corrupt and twist people.
Zerchai 02-13-06, 06:16 PM	Our group actually has several different DM's (we rotate games and run every Friday) and it's gotten to the point where my friend Kevin and I have reached a level of annoyance that has brought us to using 25-28 point buy. The reason? We used to roll, then another DM decided to roll 4d6, drop the lowest, rerolling any 1's. This eventually (it was inevitable) brought into being a character that would take 76 points to buy (18/18/18/16/16/14) and even though the rest of the party wound up around 30-36 points, the DM let him keep it: "He rolled it." The game is so overcompensated for the 76-point character that most of the rest of us just end up struggling to survive. Not fun. So I now use 25-28 point exclusively (though I'd probably allow 3d6, arrange as rolled, if one of my players desired.)
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 07:54 PM	As you wrote yourself, 28 point buy is equivalent to normal method of rolling (4d6, keep 3). Obviously, you shouldn't modify such character's ECL. Character built with 35 point buy is probably equivalent to ECL+1. I'm not sure, because I never played nor DM'ed for such a character, but we are playing on 32 point buy and it effectively gives about ECL+0.5 Sounds like an idea, though there's one thing I'd ask you to repeat to make sure. You're say +0.5 ECL for 32 point buy and +1 ECL for 35 points, not say 40 points or so? (In responce to my 4d6 rolls and high stats) That's how the dice work - after all, you have your players rolling instead of using point buy to add some randomnes. You shouldn't penalize player for having luck (unless you informed him before rolling that high rolls will bring ECL increase). That's why I use pointbuy. True, if the players woukd accept everything they've rolled. I've seen one guy almost praying for two more "low dice rolls" with 4d6 so his character was "non-playable" and he'll need to make a new one. The "non-playable" PC would have been about a 25 point character. Ultimate Reality: MAD? SAD? What are they? Guess I was away too long.
UltimateReality 02-13-06, 08:04 PM	MAD?Multiple Attribute Dependent, i.e. a character that has a lot of ability scores they want to keep high. Monks need a decent Wisdom, Strength, Dex, and Con. Paladins need Cha, Str, and Dex and Con to a lesser extent (oh and Wis should be not too bad either). Skill-monkey rogues and bards often need a good Cha, Dex, and Int, again with a lesser focus on Wis. SAD?Single Attribute Dependent. Wizards are a good example: they need an Int and that's about it. A good Dex is okay, and a nice Con is just that -- nice, not essential. Lower point buy favours SAD characters for obvious reasons. IME, though, 32 pb is just fine to make passable monks and paladins that don't outshine -- and aren't trampled by -- the wizards of the group.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 08:22 PM	Thanks Ultimate Reality. Sounds like there should be two point buy systems. One for the MAD and one for the SAD, say 32 and 28 respectively. just an idea. (Puts on asbestos jacket) Comments, critcisms, flames?
Edwind 02-13-06, 09:23 PM	I guess I would say I'm pretty generous with my stats. I let them roll 3d6 and reroll the lowest one, anything 9 or lower they reroll. And I give them three sets of six. It produces semi-powerful guys but I don't really care much for negatives although looked over my current campaign I see things I should finally stop letting them do. Like I had just realized acouple days ago that cross class skills are so frequent. And realizing this I look over their skill sheets and find they have 11 in spot or search then its a cross class. I'm not going to buzz them on it in this game, cause it will only bring complaining and we're already pretty far into the game, so I plan to pull all the things I've been letting them take for grantite away from them.
Zetakya 02-13-06, 10:45 PM	Personally I think 28 is about right, 30 at max. 32 is where, IME, MAD classes become overpowered compared to SAD High point buy also tends to make some very oddball multi-PrC "builds" more powerful.
Kuronue 02-13-06, 10:54 PM	Personally, I do die rolls and I give feats every 2 levels instead of every 3. It makes for a slightly more powerful game, and it seems to balance versus the written CRs very nicely, allowing them to tackle several on-level encounters per day (good for dungeons) and occasional encountes 1-2 levels above written. And my EPL 2 party is still being slaughtered by a Dire Bat. yikes. (to be fair, they're all newbies with no idea about party optimization...2 fighters and a barbarian that make every session, and a druid and rogue who come every other session [and the rogue rarely speaks, let alone does much, allowing the barbarian to dominate party tactics])
Vaelan 02-13-06, 11:34 PM	Almost every tale of woe over Clerics being overpowered is a result of the use of high point buy. No, almost every tale of woe over Clerics being overpowered is a result of the use of stupid enemies, poor tactics, and less-than-challenging encounters (just as a hint, if your Cleric has spare spells to buff, you aren't dealing enough damage to the players :)). Stats have nothing to do with it. As for this whole LA nonsense, just give the PC's opponents the same point-buy the PCs have.
Nom 02-14-06, 01:03 AM	Thanks Ultimate Reality. Sounds like there should be two point buy systems. One for the MAD and one for the SAD, say 32 and 28 respectively. just an idea. (Puts on asbestos jacket) Comments, critcisms, flames?Strikes me as a very odd idea. MAD characters can generally make better use of ability bonuses than SAD ones. In the general cast one single big bonus is generally better than two smaller ones. This makes sense, and the ability generation systems (PB or rolling) are generally weighted towards the middle thus favouring smaller bonuses. A SAD character can afford to sacrifice some scores to obtain the larger single bonus. An MAD character usually cannot, but makes up for it with increased efficiency, collecting multiple smaller stackable bonuses. A small increase above the nominal PB value (eg to 28) tends to favour SAD characters, since it reduces the cost of maximising a single score. As the increase gets larger (32+) it becomes possible to focus on multiple scores, tipping the balance towards MAD characters. The MAD character has multiple avenues of expansion, while the SAD character has already maximised his critical score/s. 25 tends to be a comfortable level, where the cost of a score above 16 is exhorbitant but just affordable if you really want it, while MAD characters collect a few 14s. To much below that and it becomes difficult for either character design to usefully focus.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 07:38 AM	Okay, so 28 for SAD and 32 for MAD are too much. Would 27 for SAD and 30 for MAD be better? Or perhaps 25 for SAD and 28 for MAD? Class Wiz: Pal: Clr: Rog: Str: 9 - 14 -12 - 10 Dex: 14 - 12 - 10 - 16 Con: 10 - 12 - 12 - 10 Int: 16 - 10 - 11 - 13 Wis: 12 - 14 - 14 - 10 Cha: 10 - 14 - 14 - 12 Does that look about right? Which leads to another discussion, namely which classes are "MAD" and which are "SAD"? Personally, here's my take: SAD: Fighter Barbarian Cleric Mage Sorcerer Druid Rogue MAD: Paladin Bard Monk Ranger Okay, got the fire proff jammies on. EDIT sorry about the formatting
Cantankerous 02-14-06, 08:01 AM	Why seperate the two at all? Giving a statistical adavantage is, per the RAW, a reason to up the CR of a creature to begin with. Simply using the Elite array (the 25 point buy) increases the CR of any given creature by one. Why, because you have a Class that is inherently more potent if it has statistical advantages to back it up, should those advanatges ALSO be granted directly by advancing their point buy? You certainly CAN run a perfectly good, perfectly usable Paladin or Monk or what have you on the 25 point buy. He won't have all the advantages of one who has a larger point buy, but so what? If you are going to provide parity, don't ALSO restrict the already more restricted Classes to a lower point buy too. If you feel you want a 28 or 32 point buy in your game, sure, cool, but keep the same one for all, don't make the non-MAD classes less able than they already are by comparison by also making them second class citizens in point buy. Isshia
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 08:35 AM	Just trying to find a happy medium where the SAD characters can have the one high (16) stat with 1 medium (14) or 2 lower (12, 13) and still not completely gimp out the MAD classes. Giving a MAD class 2 or 3 points more than a SAD class makes some sense to me in doing just that. Perhaps a 28/30 point buy is more like it. That way it is like the rolling of 4d6, drop lowest but lets the MAD character have 3 medium stats, (14, 15) in "core" stats they use. As for PrC, most of them I burn in effigy. They are optional and I keep them that way. The players have the option of wasting their money. For those who like gimping themselves in the mental stats, Cha, Int and Wis, I RP it out. The low Cha PC get slower, lousier service with higher prices on the average. They're not being pushed away, but they aren't really made to feel welcomed. Those with low wisdom miss obvious things as they just don't notice things (tell me you don't know people like that). Low Int see "a bunch of stuff" when asking what they see around them, where as higher Int PCs get more detailed descriptions. There are always trade offs.
UltimateReality 02-14-06, 08:48 AM	My take on it is that MAD classes shouldn't get more (or less) pb than others. Don't forget the classes are balanced against each other assuming the players are using the same stat gen method. 28-32 is a comfortable range for every class out there. Sure, MAD characters may feel better with more point buy, but who wouldn't? And, as someone else pointed out, it can be hard to determine what's MAD and what's not. Some otherwise SAD classes can be made MAD by feat choices, multi-classing, and spells and magic items. Conversely, some feats, classes, and spells/items can help make a MAD character SAD. (Think Weapon Finesse as an obvious example.) 28-32pb is just enough that MAD characters don't feel massively hurt, and don't feel incredibly powerful either. One of their drawbacks IS that they have to spread themselves a bit thin for those abilities. If you really feel badly about it, grant the party all items of their primary stat +1.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 09:10 AM	Thanks all. That's why I like this board, most of the time. I appreciate the feedback where I can bounce ideas off of others who may have already tried to do what I am thinking of doing.
Ut-Napishtim 02-14-06, 10:03 AM	Hey, no problemo. :ayyyy!: I would also like to toss out my own vote against giving different players different point buys. The player is the one who gets to choose what they want to play. If they don't feel they can effectively play a MAD character at the power level you're using, then they don't have to play one. SAD characters are generally focused on one area of abilities, MAD characters given the same point buy in lower powered games may also have to focus on one area of their abilities, or opt to have a wider array of abilities at less proficient levels. To me just because a character has more options at their disposal isn't justification to up their attributes so they can pursue them all. Personally as a player I would be much more miffed by a DM giving preferential treatment to one or more players, than I would be at having to play a MAD character without multiple buff stats (that is, not at all really). I've found that with the skills, feats, and character progression 3.5 is probably the least stat dependant edition yet. Assuming the DM is scaling the encounters, any power level is do-able - and fun. Sure, a 14 Con will give you a +2 to your Fort save and extra HP's, but Great Fortitude or Toughness (respectively) can give you the same thing if you can't get that score. At a lower point buy the player's selection of their skills and feats (and the impact of them) becomes more pronounced. At the higher ones, they're still nice to have. At any power level though I don't see any need to give one player more than another just because of their character selection. :twocents:
Sereno 02-14-06, 11:13 AM	What if people are heroes because they show extraordinary moral fortitude, selflessness, and compassion for others, not because they're strongers, smarter, or tougher than the average? Isn't that the whole idea of LotR? Frodo isn't a great warrior or a powerful wizard. He isn't all that smart. The reason he triumphs where Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Boromir, or any of the other powerful, strong, warrior types would likely have failed is because he has the integrity and decency to carry out a mission that has immense powers to corrupt and twist people. Frodo also has something that the PCs shouldn't have -- the author 100% on his side. Frodo never fails a check he needs to make, or misses an attack he needs to hit. No enemy ever critcal hits him. Frodo succeeded not because of any skills of his own, but because JRR wanted it that way. The only skill that could really be called "his" was his resistance to the influence of the One Ring. But, even Sam had that. When Frodo fell on the shoulders of Mt. Doom, Sam could have snagged the Ring for himself ... but, instead, he picks up Frodo and carries him. PCs shouldn't have the luxuries that Frodo had. Otherwise, they're just characters in the DM's story and not *players".
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 11:22 AM	Darn you to Heck Sereno, How dare you tell us to treat the PCs like they were "gasp" player controlled NPCs who have to follow the rules that everyone else has to follow? I agree. :D It's not that I want to kill PCs, if they were to die by bad rolls, yes I will fudge it so they may live, a bit more poor but alive. However, if they are about to die because of poor rolls because they did some truly questionable things "After all we're PCs", I let the dice fall where they may.
Sereno 02-14-06, 02:36 PM	Darn you to Heck Sereno, How dare you tell us to treat the PCs like they were "gasp" player controlled NPCs who have to follow the rules that everyone else has to follow? I agree. :D It's not that I want to kill PCs, if they were to die by bad rolls, yes I will fudge it so they may live, a bit more poor but alive. However, if they are about to die because of poor rolls because they did some truly questionable things "After all we're PCs", I let the dice fall where they may. Actually, I'm not quite saying to treat the PCs so that they follow the "same" rules. Rather, I think that they should be following "similar" rules. :) I DM an Eberron Campaign, and the focus is SUPPOSED to be on the PCs (that's why they have Action Points, and there's no high-level NPCs in the campaign to routinely help them out). They ARE the heros, and they DO get to do things that most NPCs couldn't ever think about doing. However, they AREN'T the characters in "my story." I'm not going to railroad them through a plot that they can't fail because *I* think it's a cool story. They will miss important saves, get criticaled, make occasional bad decisions, do things that I don't expect, and (unfortunately for them) be unlucky. I do fudge the occasional roll so that bad luck doesn't flat-out kill a PC, too.
JulesCARV 02-14-06, 05:46 PM	Frodo also has something that the PCs shouldn't have -- the author 100% on his side. Frodo never fails a check he needs to make, or misses an attack he needs to hit. No enemy ever critcal hits him. Frodo succeeded not because of any skills of his own, but because JRR wanted it that way. The only skill that could really be called "his" was his resistance to the influence of the One Ring. But, even Sam had that. When Frodo fell on the shoulders of Mt. Doom, Sam could have snagged the Ring for himself ... but, instead, he picks up Frodo and carries him. PCs shouldn't have the luxuries that Frodo had. Otherwise, they're just characters in the DM's story and not *players". If PCs shouldn't have the luxury of having the game rigged in their favor, why should they have the luxury of being better in all respects than the common person? Granted, it would require a negative level adjustment or lowered CR system, but it isn't innately ridiculous: abolitionists fought against slavery, often at personal risk, and they were just people. Some of them probably had the equivalent of the "elite array," (there are unusually smart, strong, charismatic, etc. people around, after all) but most not. Those people who sheltered Jews/gays/Roma/dissidents from the Nazis, even though the punishment was death? They weren't Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8 builds with feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain, Combat Expertise, Scribe Scroll, Improved Trip, Craft Wondrous Item, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, and Improved Disarm and 16 strength, 14 constitution and dexterity, 17 intelligence, and 10 charisma and wisdom. They were just people who thought that what the Nazis were doing was so wrong that it was worth resisting, at the risk of death. Many of them did, in fact, die. After all, couldn't just Dimension Door out of there. Of course, one could make the Darwinian case that only a small, select fraction of the population would become adventurers of the D&D sort. Sure, a person with a 15-point build might try to become an adventurer, but they would die soon after starting, or face such horrid injuries and conditions that they'd soon be sent back home, and would never become first level PCs. On the other hand, one might claim that the typical adventurer is much more likely to be an unreliable, desperate thug than the type who marries, gets a steady job, has kids, etc, and adventuring is something likely to be done by the sort who never fit in. One could argue (with the "rejects" theory of adventurers, rather than the "Darwinian" theory of 1st level PCs) that adventurers are likely to be more screwed up and have worse stats than most. I'm not saying that there's something wrong with 28 point builds. I'm playing in a campaign with a 30 point build myself right now. I'm just saying that 15 point builds are an interesting idea, and running a campaign based on that idea could be very neat
Sereno 02-15-06, 08:42 AM	If PCs shouldn't have the luxury of having the game rigged in their favor, why should they have the luxury of being better in all respects than the common person? <snipped> I'm not saying that there's something wrong with 28 point builds. I'm playing in a campaign with a 30 point build myself right now. I'm just saying that 15 point builds are an interesting idea, and running a campaign based on that idea could be very neat I disagree with this. I believe the PCs SHOULD be a cut above the average guy ... they're supposed to be heros in the D&D sense, not the real world "behaved in a heroic manner" sense. Certainly bravery (such as displayed by the abolitionists) is heroic and need not be tied to ability scores, but none of those people would lilely have stood for 1 combat round with a D&D monster. Some people like low-power games. Some people like low-magic games. Personally, that's not what I play D&D for. In real life, I'm an average guy with no magical abilities ... why would I want to play that in a game? :)
Ut-Napishtim 02-15-06, 09:17 AM	Personally I would relish the opportunity to play an 'Everyday Heroes' (15 point buy/3d6 keep all) style of game. I could see how a DM could easily balance it out by adding a CR point to creatures using the elite array (as the PC's aren't even getting that). I think that could be a lot of fun if you could find people actually interested in running or playing in such a campaign. Of course, therein lies the problem I guess. :thinks:
astute1 02-15-06, 10:06 AM	I believe the PCs SHOULD be a cut above the average guy ... they're supposed to be heros in the D&D sense, not the real world "behaved in a heroic manner" sense. So do I. Although, I think it might be fun to play in a "gritty" campaign once in a while, where the enemies are equal to the PCs. Given the way my DM runs things, though, you'd have to have a lot of backup characters to play in that campaign. We're currently playing in a 25 point, low-magic, no-raise dead campaign, and death is a real concern for most of us.
calvinNhobbes 02-15-06, 10:22 AM	I like point buy systems because it ensures fairness among the players as well as customization, but I also like the random excitement of rolling stats. So I do a combo system: 24+1d6, giving 25-30 point buy. Everyone gets a decent character, but sometimes you can get lucky and get a slightly better character. It also adds a little randomness to the stats so you actually see some odd numbers.
Ut-Napishtim 02-15-06, 11:24 AM	I like that idea, calvinNhobbes. Although I could even see doing 24+1d8 since 25-32 are all around the 28 point area. I'll have to run that by my group and see what they think. :ayyyy!:
DarthMarasmus 02-15-06, 11:47 AM	I just use standard 4d6 method, never start a game with lvl 1 characters (the only time I did, they died by a fluke of the dice), and never keep up with a numeric XP total. I prefer to just tell people to level up when I feel like telling them to level up, it's just easier that way. I trust my own judgement in such matters, not the book. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but my players have fun, I have fun, and that's all that matters.
astute1 02-15-06, 12:09 PM	So I do a combo system: 24+1d6, giving 25-30 point buy. I suggested this to my group once and it was resoundingly shot down. The main complaint was, "He'll have a better character than me right from the points." Another option is to use a "random point buy" calculator. The one I use generates utterly random point buy stats to whatever point buy you are using. It gives you a bit of the random feel of die rolling, but also gives you exactly even points. It also prevents the aggregious point-buy offenses that min-maxers tend to commit. I'm planning on incorporating it completely in my next campaign.
calvinNhobbes 02-15-06, 01:36 PM	Some people will always complain. I like 24 +1d6 because although 30 is obviously better than 25, it is not necessarily more powerful. If you get 25 instead of 30, you just need to focus your character more. 24 +1d8 starts to open the range more. A 32 point buy compared to 25 starts to make obvious power differences show up. Anything more than that (d10, d12) is asking for too much range between players. I guess that is why I do not like the 4d6 method. It's not really that hard to get some pretty uber characters that way. You could also give them a choice. You can take the 28 points or gamble and roll 1d8 for 25-32 points. No one can complain if they are underpowered or someone else is overpowered cause they either didn't have to gamble, or could have, but everyone is still at the same relative power level.
calvinNhobbes 02-15-06, 01:46 PM	I just use standard 4d6 method, never start a game with lvl 1 characters (the only time I did, they died by a fluke of the dice), and never keep up with a numeric XP total. I prefer to just tell people to level up when I feel like telling them to level up, it's just easier that way. I trust my own judgement in such matters, not the book. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but my players have fun, I have fun, and that's all that matters. A character never dies by the fluke of the dice. As DM, especially at low levels, I decrease the damage rolls if needed to help keep the party alive. If a character at any level dies, it is because the player did something stupid or the DM wanted them to die, but it is never the fault of the dice.
Ut-Napishtim 02-15-06, 02:02 PM	I like 24 +1d6 because although 30 is obviously better than 25, it is not necessarily more powerful. If you get 25 instead of 30, you just need to focus your character more. 24 +1d8 starts to open the range more. A 32 point buy compared to 25 starts to make obvious power differences show up. That's a good point. I'd speculate that considering the scaling of the point buy method, the power difference wouldn't be as pronounced as it would be in a game where the players were all rolling their stats though. But I couldn't really say for sure without playtesting it. :thinks:
danielinthewolvesden 02-15-06, 02:27 PM	Ahhhh Daniel, a 15 point build IS the standard for NPCs. It is the 10, 10, 10, 11,11,11 that all non-elite NPCs are based on unless you rework their stats. Isshia Yes- for NPC's- who aren't the heroes. The PC's are the heroes. Clerics are SAD only if you aren't throwing enough Undead at the party. If the Cleric is really going to turn, he also needs a high CHA. Meless clerics need STR also.